OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, etc.) Bill (by Order),

Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ARTIFICIAL LEG (SYMES' AMPUTATION).

Mr. G. TERRELL: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions the cost of the Government artificial leg for Symes' amputation, as manufactured in the Munitions Inventions Department, Imber Court, and how this cost compares with that of British limb-makers?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): A limb for the Symes' amputation has been manufactured experimentally in the Government workshop, but no decision has been reached as to its adoption, and no comparison can be made between the cost of its manufacture and the prices paid for similar limbs to private firms.

DISABLED OFFICERS AND MEN.

Captain COOTE: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that in the case of disabled officers a consideraable time elapses between the date of gazetting to the retired list and consequent cessation of half pay, and the grant of disability retired pay upon the award of the Ministry; whether he is aware that the delay causes financial
hardship in such cases; and whether he can arrange that such officers may obtain an advance of disability retired pay pending confirmation by the Ministry of the medical board's award upon the same conditions as such an advance is now given to disabled non-commissioned officers and men.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion has been in operation for nearly a year. Advances are made to cover periods of inevitable delay, but delays in the case of regular officers to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers are extremely rare.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many Local War Pensions Committees there are in the United Kingdom; and how many have given an undertaking under the terms of the National Scheme for the employment of disabled ex-service men?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Long before the National Scheme was instituted the Local War Pensions Committees were instructed to employ disabled men. They have not hitherto been asked to give the formal undertaking required by the National Scheme, as it is recognised that they are in a position of exceptional responsibility towards the disabled and that a pledge to employ five per cent. of disabled men would be inappropriate to their case I am, however, considering whether they should not be asked to give the undertaking on the basis of a higher percentage.

Mr. BILLING: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask for a return from these various War Pension Committees saying what proportion are disabled soldiers, so that we may have an opportunity of ascertaining whether they are carrying this out or not?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I made inquiry in my own office this morning and was told that we can be satisfied that a great many more than 5 per cent. of disabled men are employed. I do not want to call for a return if I can help it, because there are 1,500 committees and sub-committees who are very busy.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Can the House understand that the right hon. Gentleman is taking such steps as are possible to secure the maximum employment for disabled men by War Pensions Committees?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Certainly.

MASSAGE SERVICE

Major HILLS: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been directed to the fact that members of the massage service receive no bonus, gratuity or pension whether members of this service have worked all through the War; and whether he will secure for them either a pension or a gratuity or both?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Ministry of Pensions Massage Service has in the main been recruited from the Military Massage Service, and the personnel have worked for varying periods during the War. In common with the rest of the temporary staff of the Ministry, the Massage Service are not ontitled to bonus, gratuity, or pension, and there would appear to be no ground for their being accorded exceptional treatment in this respect.

YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE F. J. CAMPBELL).

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the accounts relative to the estate of the late Private F. J. Campbell, No. 33,768, 5th Battalion, Yorkshire Regiment, have been under the consideration of the authorities for several months; and if he can state when the investigations will be completed and the matter settled?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am answering this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, to whom it should have been addressed. The issue of the amount due in this case has now been authorised.

DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Captain LOSEBY: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that medical boards still frequently refuse to inform soldiers immediately after examination of the degree of disability at which they have been assessed; and if he will consider the advisability of issuing emphatic instructions upon this subject?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of an Office Instruction, issued in December of last year, from which he will see that explicit directions have been issued to Medical Boards in this matter.
I shall be glad to have particulars of any cases where these directions are not being observed.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this omission is particularly striking in the case of disabled soldiers wounded prior to 1914 who are being re-assessed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not had my attention called to any differentiation between pre-1914 and post-1914 men, but I will sec whether there is any such differentiation. There is no instruction.

Captain LOSEBY: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that many officers, non-commissioned officers, and men disabled prior to 1914 have not yet realised that they are entitled to the same disability pensions as soldiers wounded in the late War; and if he will consider the advisability of giving the widest possible publicity to the latest Regulations affecting their position?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The increases of pension which can be granted to officers and men disabled in former wars have been made public by means of repeated questions and answers in this House, by announcements in the press and by circular letter addressed to all Local War Pensions Committees in the United Kingdom.

Captain REDMOND: In view of the fact that the House recently carried a Resolution in favour of giving increased pensions to policemen, will the right hon. Gentleman not take into consideration that the same course should be taken in the case of ex-soldiers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have nothing to do with policemen.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it necessary for these officers and men to make application before they are given the increased pensions?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The conditions have been stated publicly over and over again, and communicated to the Press, and by circular to the Local War Pensions Committees, and I think I am right in saying by advertisements in the ex-service papers, but if not I will see that they are advertised.

Captain LOSEBY: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions if a soldier to whom a permanent disability pension at the highest rate was awarded prior to 1914 becomes now automatically entitled to the highest disability rate applicable to soldiers wounded in the recent War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: A soldier to whom a, permanent disability pension at the highest rate was awarded prior to 1914 does not automatically become entitled to the highest disability-rate applicable to soldiers wounded in the Great War. He becomes entitled to that rate only if he is now totally disabled by the disability for which he was originally pensioned and provided that such disability was due to service in a former War.

Captain LOSEBY: Are soldiers wounded in the recent War who are awarded a permanent pension liable to be called up before another board?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That does not arise out of the question, but the permanent pensioner does receive a permanent pension.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is there any reason why a pre-War permanent pensioner should not also receive the increased permanent war pension?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is precisely what he does, if he is suffering from a disability for which he got a permanent pension.

Captain LOSEBY: Does not the term permanent pension mean a pension permanently awarded, and not liable to be re-assessed by a fresh board?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should rather say it meant awarded permanently.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT, IRELAND.

Colonel ASHLEY: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can give figures showing what progress has been made in settling ex-service men on the land in Ireland; and what further number of men it is hoped will be provided with holdings in the immediate future?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): On untenanted
land acquired by the Estates Commissioners for purposes of distribution under the Irish Land Acts, 1903–9, 71 men who had served in the War, and who came within one or other of the classes of persons to whom untenanted land may be allotted under these Acts, have been provided with holdings. Under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, the Commissioners are in negotiation for the purchase of some 2,000 acres and are in communication with owners of other lands. At this stage of the proceedings it is not possible to state how much of these lands may be acquired or how many ex-Service men can be provided with holdings. 5,730 applications have so far been received from ex-Service men for cottages and plots. The work of investigating these applications in different parts of the country is proceeding, and ten schemes providing accommodation for about 300 men are before the Local Government Board for consideration.

Mr. TURTON: Is it not a fact that Captain Shawe Taylor put an ex-service man on his land and was foully and cruelly murdered in consequence?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

Captain REDMOND: What information has the Government given to ex-Service men in Ireland as to the procedure which they should adopt in order to make application?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that all ex-Service men have been informed. The very fact that 5,730 applications have been received and are now being considered shows that these men are aware of it.

Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have numerous letters from men asking as to whom they should make application, so that I do not think they have the information?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend asked me that, because I should like all these men in Ireland-to know that applications should be sent in to the Local Government Board.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a much larger number of recruits in Ireland came from the towns, and that the more urgent necessity
is to provide for the men in the towns? The Chief Secretary will probably be able to indorse that, as it is known that the farmers came up very badly.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am quite aware that a larger percentage did come from the towns. Of course the Government could not intervene to help these men in the same way as they could intervene where agriculture was concerned, because a body existed already in Ireland under the Government. We are doing our best to meet all cases, and as the House knows, recently the Minister of Labour was able to get an additional £100,000 to meet the case of these men recruited in the towns.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many ex-service men in Ulster have secured land?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I could not say off-hand. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

Captain REDMOND: May I ask whether, if an ex-service man in Ireland resides in a town, it precludes him from getting land?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Not at all. Under this Act any ex-service men who were in the Air Force, the Navy or the Army, whether they reside in the country or in the town, would be accepted.

Mr. DEVLIN: Why should special privileges be given to ex-service men in agricultural districts and no compensating benefit given to ex-service men in towns?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have just said that the Government are enabled by various Acts in existence to help men in rural districts much more than they are able to help those in cities. We are doing our level best for all.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

HOUSING SCHEMES AND EXPENDITURE.

Captain REDMOND: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many houses have been erected and what amount has been expended under the Housing Act in Ireland; and, if the Act has broken down by reason of the financial difficulties, what action he proposes to take to remedy the present state of affairs?

Mr. MACPHERSON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to a similar question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mid Antrim on the 20th November last. There is no information available regarding the amount expended under the Act. Most of the local authorities are engaged in formulating schemes. It is too soon to measure progress by the number of houses erected.

Captain REDMOND: Am I to understand that the Chief Secretary has no further information to give to the House since 20th November last concerning the number of houses erected in Ireland and the money expended?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find full information in the answer. I know that additional schemes have been placed before the Local Government Board, and they are now being considered. I hope that great progress will be made in the near future.

Mr. M. MEHIGAN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why Mr. Michael Mehigan was arrested at his home, Blackrock, Cork, on the night of 1st February and deported to Wormwood Scrubs Prison on 15th February; whether he is aware that Mr. Mehigan is the Returning Officer appointed by the Cork County Council for the council and local elections to be held in June next; why documents dealing with the proportional representation system of election were taken from his house; whether Mr. Mehigan will be brought to trial; and, if not, whether he will be released in time for the elections in June?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Under an Order made in pursuance of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, Mr. Mehigan has been deported from Ireland and interned in Wormwood Scrubs Prison as a person suspected of having acted, and being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the defence of the Realm. I am informed that Mr. Mehigan was appointed Returning Officer by the Cork County Council, but since his internment a deputy has been appointed. Some printed circulars relating to proportional representation which were taken possession
of were returned. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May I ask whether the suspicions on which he was arrested were well founded?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we have a reply to the fifth part of the question—whether he will be brought to trial?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have already answered that in the negative.

ARRESTS (STATISTICS).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many arrests have been made in Ireland during the month of January in the years 1914 and 1920, respectively?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of arrests made in Ireland during the month of January, 1914, was 3,222, and during the same month in 1920, was 1,955.

Mr. DEVLIN: How many of these men were put on trial?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not been asked that question.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Was that for all offences?

MILITARY RAID (DUBLIN).

Mr. DEVLIN: 15.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware than on Thursday morning, 26th February, a house in Park Avenue, Sandymount, Dublin, was raided by military; that the sole residents of the house in question were two ladies who have no connection with any political organisation; that a company of soldiers with fixed bayonets entered the house headed by an officer, who, without producing any warrant or offering an explanation, proceeded to search the house from top to bottom;. that the search produced no results, and that the officer and party withdrew without offering any apology or explanation for their intrusion; whether some jewellery, the property of the ladies, was taken by the military in their raided; whether he can state why this house was raided: whether these raids are carried out without warrants; and, if so, what protection have the citizens of Dublin against unwarrantable raids of this character?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am aware that the house referred to was raided by the military who state that they had reason to believe that persons were in hiding there for whose arrests warrants had been issued. The result of the search disclosed nothing incriminating, and the officer in charge had no knowledge of the removal of anything from the house. A letter of regret was addressed on 3rd instant to the brother of the two ladies, who was asked to send in details of any missing articles, and who has not yet replied.

Mr. DEVLIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman attempted to justify in this House this raid by a number of military men on two ladies living alone? Has he any justification to offer?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have never attempted to justify this particular raid. It is not true, as far as I understand, that the ladies were living alone I understand a brother was living with them. I have already said that the military acted upon what they regarded as very reliable authority, and they have expressed their regret.

Mr. DEVLIN: How many similar cases have occurred in Ireland?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no knowledge, but I am certain that if any more had occurred I should have heard of them.

Mr. DEVLIN: I could keep the House going for a week with them.

EDUCATION BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that there is considerable opposition in Ireland on the part of the Catholic ecclesiastical authorities to his proposed. Education Bill: whether he has seen it stated that the Bill will have the effect of interfering with the regulations for the giving of religious instruction in the schools and that the present managerial system is endangered by the Bill; and whether, in the event of its being shown that in the present Bill there is no guarantee for the security of religious teaching as at present carried on or for the continuation of the present managerial system, it is proposed to insert in the Bill a definite form of words which, in the opinion of the legal advisers of the
Catholic ecclesiastical authorities, would ensure that neither one or other of these two matters were interfered with or endangered by the new proposals?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am aware that the Roman Catholic bishops have ex-pressed their opposition to certain aspects of the Bill. The statements referred to in the second part of the question may have been made, but, if so, they are quite erroneous. Clause 3 of the Bill expressly provides, in accordance with my intention, that the principles and practice now governing religious instruction in the schools shall be adhered to. There is no indication or suggestion in the Bill of any interference with the so-called managerial system. On the contrary, there are many provisions which are quite inconsistent with any discontinuance of the system. With regard to the last part of the question, I shall, of course, be prepared to consider any words proposed to be inserted in the Bill to make this position clear.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill is being introduced in face of the almost united hostility of the country, and can he justify the introduction of a Bill dealing with such a vital matter as primary education in Ireland when the Government are about to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole government of the country?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The Leader of the House explained the attitude of the Government with regard to the last part of the question. With regard to the first part of the question, my information is quite the reverse. I believe the vast majority of people in Ireland are in favour of this Bill, and, in any case, all those who regard education as a vital interest to the country are in favour of the Bill.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state to the House what manifestation of friendly feeling towards this Bill he has received from any quarter?

Mr. MACPHERSON: To use my hon. Friends expression, it would take me a whole week to answer that.

Mr. DEVLIN: Do you intend to go on with this Bill?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY.

SOCIALISTS (EXECUTIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information that Socialists and Communists are being hanged by the Hungarian Government; whether the British representative in Hungary intervened with a view to saving the Socialists Otto Korvin and Eugen Laszlo, and whether they were hanged, nevertheless; and whether any British officials or officers have been present at any executions in Hungary?

The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): A number of Hungarian subjects were recently executed at Buda Pesth after trial, and conviction, on charges of murder and other crimes, there being no extenuating circumstances. The British military representative, who had been authorised to use his discretion in making friendly representations in case he considered that there was a danger of grave injustice being done, informally discussed with the Minister of the Interior the possibility of postponing the executions so as to give time for further consideration, but it was found that the Hungarian executive were powerless, without violating their constitution, to interfere with the decisions of the highest court of justice. According to the report furnished by His Majesty's High Commissioner at Buda Pesth, the trials were conducted in open court with every fairness and in strict accordance with the law, the prisoners being given every opportunity for proper defence. I am not aware of any British officers having witnessed this or other executions in Hungary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will my hon. and gallant Friend make inquiries so that statements in the Press can be denied that British officers have been present at these hangings?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is this country responsible for the internal affairs of Hungary?

Mr. DEVLIN: Has this country not enough to answer for in its criminalities in Ireland?

BRITISH RESPONSIBILITY.

Sir J. D. REES: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any responsibility rests upon the British Government for homicide, justifiable or unjustifiable, in Hungary??

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the negative.

Sir J. D. REES: May I ask why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should answer questions put on the assumption of an indefined and indefinable responsibility on the part of this country and Government for such actions in other countries?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May a ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the same policy extends to Russia with regard to responsibility for internal affairs?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The policy of the Government is announced by the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister. With reference to the question of my hon. Friend (Sir J. D. Bees), I do my best, and so does the Foreign Office, to answer courteously every question that is put.

Mr. BROMFIELD: 29
asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on His Majesty's Government's policy towards Hungary, in view of the fact that there are daily reports in the Press of atrocities and acts of intimidation practised by the Hungarian military, and that the Hungarian Government is unable by itself to exercise control?
(2) If His Majesty's Government intends shortly to make peace with the present Hungarian Government; whether it is intended to make a condition of peace with Hungary that the Hungarian troops concerned in acts of intimidation and murder shall be immediately disarmed in order to enable the Hungarian Government to maintain a stable administration of Hungarian affairs and to afford protection from political persecution to the Hungarian people?

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that two officers arrested in connection with the murders of Bela Somogyi and Barco, the Hungarian Social Democrat editors, have been released by the Hungarian authorities, because certain officers threatened
a pogrom and open rebellion; whether two men, Miller and Reumann, who gave evidence relating to the murders, have themselves been murdered; and whether His Majesty's Government intend taking any steps to protect political parties in Hungary, in view of the fact that the Hungarian Government appears unwilling or unable to control or punish the crimes of its troops?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The general attitude of His Majesty's Government has been explained by my hon. Friend the Additional Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in reply to the hon. Member for Bedwellty on 3rd March, and we have since received a long and detailed report from His Majesty's High Commissioner at Budapest, which indicates that the various reports which continue to be received in this country are much exaggerated, and that the Hungarian Government are, on the whole, maintaining order well, and are in no way indulging in political persecutions. I propose shortly to communicate Mr. Hohler's Report to the House, and I am confident that my hon. Friend will agree that His Majesty's Government would not be justified in the circumstances in interfering in what, after all, is a question of internal Hungarian polities.

Mr. SWAN: Am I to understand that the statements in the press are entirely inaccurate?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not quite say that; they are much exaggerated

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the Government of Admiral Horthey may be well disposed, they are in the hands of the white terror in some districts?

Captain W. BENN: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information with regard to the reported mobilisation of several classes of conscripts in Hungary by order of Admiral Horthey; and whether any action is contemplated by the Allies?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no official information on this subject, but I am inquiring by telegram of His Majesty's High Commissioner at Budapest.

S.S. "PATRICIA."

Major WATTS MORGAN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause enquiries to be made as to who gave permission for the sailing of the s.s. "Patricia," and if she was examined, and by whom was this done; and, further, having regard to the widespread feeling prevailing, whether he will issue daily reports as to the movements of this vessel in order to allay the deep anxiety of thousands of people in this country as to the passage of the said vessel?

The PRIME MINISTER: The s.s. "Patricia" was inspected by the Board of Trade surveyors at Liverpool, and was granted a passenger certificate at Liverpool. As soon as she was ready for sea she sailed for India under the directions of the Ministry of Shipping. It was intended to embark native troops at Marseilles, and in this connection the ship was inspected at Liverpool. It was found that some of the sanitary connections were unsatisfactory, and as time did not permit of this being rectified before sailing, the plumbers and material were put on board to carry out the necessary repairs on the voyage to Marseilles. On arrival at Marseilles the unsatisfactory conditions still existed, and the vessel was detained while further work was carried out. The ship was then inspected, and, being reported satisfactory, native troops were embarked. On the voyage from Marseilles to Malta there was a breakdown of a sanitary pump, which necessitated further delay at Malta. The vessel left Malta on the 3rd March, and sailed from Suez on the 9th March for Bombay. The vessel's arrival at Bombay will be publicly notified. There is no reason to doubt the seaworthiness of the ship.

TANGIER.

Major Earl WINTERTON: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the grave allegations which have appeared in the press concerning the maladministration at Tangier by the International Commission; whether he is aware that the Conseil Sanitaire provides no native hospital and that the water supply of the native portion of the town is almost non-existent: and whether the British members of the Conseil Sanitaire have taken any steps to protest against the state of affairs?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the statements in the press. It it not correct to say that Tangier is administered by an International Commission. It had been agreed between the British, French and Spanish Governments to set up a reformed system of administration on special lines at Tangier. The War interrupted the negotiations and prevented a settlement for the time being. The negotiations are now being resumed and it is hoped that a satisfactory organisation of government will be established shortly under which the administration of Tangier will be able effectively to cope with such problems as are raised by the Noble Lord's question.

Earl WINTERTON: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman deny that the Conseil Sanitaire is responsible for the municipal government of Tangier?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must assure my Noble Friend that I dealt with that in the reply, which says:
It is not correct to say that Tangier is administered by an International Commission.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is he aware that it is attributed to the breakdown of International control?

Earl WINTERTON: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he, is aware that the native Moslem inhabitants of Tangier have the greatest, difficulty in obtaining any justice in the courts owing to the complicated system of international capitulations; and whether His Majesty's Government will use their good offices with the government of the French Republic so that a joint effort may be made to reform and simplify the capitulations?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The system of extra-territorial jurisdiction which, under the name of capitulations, applies not merely in Tangier, but in the whole of Morocco and in a number of other countries, is notoriously imperfect. His Majesty's Government are already in consultation with the French and Spanish governments as to the conditions on which the foreign consular jurisdiction in Tangier could be withdrawn, and an early settlement of the question is confidently hoped for.

Earl WINTERTON: For the information of those who wish to take part in a
Debate on the international capitulations, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman issue a White Paper as to the scandals of this administration in Tangier?

SEA EXPLORATION (INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has resumed its deliberations; and, if so, what countries have been represented at the meetings of the council?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir. The Council met in London on 2nd March. The following countries were represented: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.

TURKEY.

CILICIA MASSACRES.

Captain COOTE: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent massacres of Armenians and other Christians in Cilicia were carried out by rebels against the Turkish Government; if so, whether they have been proclaimed as such; and, if not, what degree of responsibility rests upon the Turkish Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The recent massacres in Cilicia are understood to have been carried out by irregular troops who are believed to be under the authority of Mustapha Kemal Pasha.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not the fact that Mustapha Kemal Pasha is the agent of the Committee of Union and Progress which is power in the Turkish Parliament, and is it not that Committee that organises these massacres?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot accept that as a statement of fact.

Lord R. CECIL: la it not the fact that Mustapha Kemal Pasha has been in constant and close communication with the Turkish Ministry of War?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That I cannot say.

RUSSIA.

CO-OPERATORS' DELEGATION.

Mr. LUNN: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a delegation of Russian co-operators had proposed to visit this country with a view to opening up trade in accordance with the the recent decisions of the Allies; whether the British Government has refused to grant passports to some members of the delegation; if so, who were these members; and on what grounds were they refused passports to visit this country for a purpose approved by His Majesty's Government in conjunction with the Allies?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter parts of the question, His Majesty's Government have raised no objection to the admission to this country of the members of the delegation with the sole exception of M. Litvinoff, to whom, in view of the incidents which arose in 1918, they cannot see their way to grant facilities to return to England.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentle man aware that of these five Russian delegates supposed to be co-operators only one is known to the International Co-operative Alliance as being a co-operator at all?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was not aware of that.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is M. Krassin accepted?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: He is one of the representatives of the co-operators whose admission to this country has been accepted.

SPECIAL MISSION (SOUTH RUSSIA).

Mr. WATERSON: 32.
asked the Prime Minister how soon the Report of the special Mission to South Russia will be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: This Report is of a highly confidential nature, and it is not proposed to publish it for the present.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 56.
asked the Primo Minister whether the Government will consider issuing some authentic statement regarding the present conditions of labour under the Soviet government, and also some statement regarding the murders and atrocities which have been carried out, in view of the fact that propaganda in every large city in Great Britain is being carried on in order to mislead the people as to the true state of affairs in Russia under the Soviet system?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are not in a position to issue an authentic statement themselves. It is with the view of obtaining authentic information as to the conditions in Russia that the Supreme Council of the Allies has recommended to the League of Nations that a Mission should be sent to Russia.

Mr. LYLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman use his great influence to see that the Commissioners appointed are appointed quickly, in order that the damage, done by Bolshevic propaganda in the speeches of certain unbalanced Members of Parliament is counteracted?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think there is a meeting to-day or to-morrow to appoint those Commissioners.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who are the unbalanced Members of Parliament?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Minister for War one of them?

TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY WAGONS (SALE IN BELGIUM).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister in what respects the 15,000 railway wagons sold to Belgium by His Majesty's Government were unsuitable for use on British railways; whether the necessary alterations could have been made in many cases at a less cost and in a shorter time than it takes to build new wagons; and, having regard to the handicap to increased production caused by the shortage of railway wagons in this country, will he give instructions that no more wagons are to be sold, but
are to be returned from overseas without further delay?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to reply to this question. Of the 15,000 wagons sold to Belgium, 5,662 were sold by the Ministry of Munitions. These were wagons of the continental type, which would not pass the English loading gauge or were fitted with a guard's compartment containing brake operating gear of a type not used on the English railways. These wagons were not brought back for adaptation as it was desired to use the available transport to carry the very large number of British railway companies' wagons which could at once be put into circulation. Already 15,371 of these have been returned to England, and there still remain 14,304 to be brought back to this country. The delivery of these is being effected as quickly as possible.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as far back as October last the Ministry promised to return eight or nine hundred weekly to this country and that they have not been returned at anything like that rate, and can he expedite their return?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Everything is being done to expedite delivery.

Mr. BILLING: Has the Minister of Transport been consulted in reference to the sale of those wagons abroad, and, if not, is it proposed to consult him in future?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The Minister of Transport is consulted on all matters which affect that Ministry.

Mr. BILLING: Has the Minister of Transport approved of these sales of wagons, and is he aware that the Minister told us that the sole reason for the transport trouble is shortage of wagons?

Mr. KELLAWAY: That would be fairly obvious, but the controlling factor in this case has been shortage of transport to bring the wagons back.

Mr. DEVLIN: Could you not take military wagons from Ireland?

PEACE TREATIES.

AUSTRIA AND BULGARIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes
to make a statement with regard to the Austrian and Bulgarian Treaties of Peace, respectively?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am unable to make any definite statement on this question at present, but the Government recognise the importance of proceeding to ratification without delay, and I hope it may be possible to make some statement before Easter, if other business permits.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the fact that opportunities for discussion were refused before publication of the Treaties, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we will have an opportunity of discussion when they are published, having regard to the great importance of those Treaties?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that is the difficulty in getting on with the ratification. The House would naturally like to discuss the subject, and we would like to make the necessary arrangements before Caster, but there is hardly time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it possible for us in this House who view with grave concern the severance of districts from Hungary to have an opportunity to make a protest against this action, which is directly contrary to our principles of self-determination?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the financial situation of the country depends on these Treaties, would it not be equally, or more, important to discuss them instead of giving so much time for finance.

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman must know very well that finance must be concluded by 31st March, and there is the constitutional difficulty over which we have no control.

WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Viscount CURZON: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether German naval officers are among the war criminals on the list for trial by Germany submitted by the British Empire; whether there are considerable differences in the construing of International Law as between England and Germany as far as maritime warfare is concerned; whether it would be
possible for an officer to be convicted under English law and acquitted under German law; and, if so, whether the Supreme Council are prepared to accept the probable acquittal by the German Courts?

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: 54
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the arrangements have yet been completed for the trial by Germans of their fellow countrymen charged with cruelty to British prisoners of war; when the trials will begin, what are the names of those who will be first tried, and what precautions are being taken to ensure that the trials will be fairly conducted and the sentences on those who may be convicted adequate to the cruelty of which they have been guilty?
(2) Whether a German commission sitting in Germany to investigate the allegtions of unfairness against those who tried and executed Captain Fryatt has recently reported that the trial was properly conducted and the execution deserved; whether he is aware that this is in direct contradiction to the Report of the English committee which has investigated the same subject; and what steps he proposes to take so as to ensure that those responsible for Captain Fryatt's death shall be brought to trial and in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: A law has been passed by the German Parliament entrusting the trial of all persons charged by the Allies with crimes against humanity and the laws of war to the Supreme Court at Leipsic. That Court will have complete control over the trials free from interference by the German Government, and the law provides that neither amnesty nor previous trials shall protect the accused from being tried by the Court. I may add that some German naval officers are upon the list of persons submitted by the British Empire for trial, and that the other points raised in the question are being brought to the attention of the Committee now sitting in Paris, who have charge of the negotiations and arrangements for the trial of the accused before the Leipsic Court.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask what steps the British Government took to ascertain what is the law in Germany in connection with this matter', and whether it will be possible for the German Courts to find
that it was not illegal to torpedo a hospital ship?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question?

PALESTINE.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision can yet be given concerning the future status of Palestine?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the Treaty with Turkey is still under discussion, I am not in a position to make a statement.

Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman anxious to have the Treaty with Turkey brought about as soon as possible?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, certainly.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Should I be likely to get a reply if I put this question down in six months?

IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Viscount CURZON: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the constitution and composition of the post-War Fleet, Army, and Air Force have been considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative, but as indicated in my reply to a similar question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone on 4th March, the questions have been and are frequently under consideration by the Cabinet or its Committees, which always work in close consultation with the fighting Departments.

POLAND.

Mr. W. CARTER: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Allies have laid down the boundaries within which they will support the Polish armies if attacked by the Russian Soviet forces; and whether the territories claimed by the Polish Government in its negotiations with the Russian Soviet Government extend beyond the boundaries assured to Poland by the Allies?

The PRIME MINISTER: It has already been stated that the Allies would give
every possible support to any community which is attacked inside its legitimate frontier by Soviet Russia; as regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, negotiations have not actually begun and I am therefore unable to give any reply. The eastern frontiers of Poland have only been fixed provisionally by the Supreme Council.

STATE PENSIONERS.

Colonel Sir JAMES REMNANT: 34.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the very strong feeling of this House, as shown on Wednesday, 25th February last, in the Division on the Motion to increase the pensions granted to police officers and men before 1st April, 1919, in order to meet the increased cost of living; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to give effect to it?

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission or Select Committee to inquire into the hardship suffered, owing to the great rise of prices, by pensioners from the Army, Navy, Civil Service, police, railway, and other services as well as by other people of small means derived from friendly societies or small investments, and into the possibility of the State helping some or all of these people?

Mr. D. HERBERT: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether, pending the time when the finances of the country may justify a general increase in pre-war pensions to retired servants of the State, the Government will provide funds for giving relief in cases of extreme necessity to be administered by a commission on lines similar to the Officers Civil Liabilities Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have again carefully considered this subject and cannot depart from the decision already announced that, having regard to the very heavy expenditure due to the War, it would be most unjust to the general taxpayer to raise the pre-war pensions in accordance with the present scale. We have, however, appointed a Committee to consider whether any steps can be taken to relieve exceptional cased of hardship due, for example, to age and infirmity, but the House must realise how great are the difficulties in dealing
with this subject owing to the financial situation.

Sir J. REMNANT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to refer the question of increasing the pre-war police pensions to the Home Secretary's Committee which was appointed to deal with the conditions of the police, and which could be called together at any moment, seeing that the House by Resolution two day's ago, and on the admission of the Home Secretary, was unanimously in favour of steps being taken in this direction?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large expression of opinion has been made by this House in the form of a Resolution which has been forwarded to him, to the Leader of the House, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking if he will kindly deal with all pre-War pensioners at the same time, and not by piecemeal, and that he shall deal especially with necessitous cases immediately, and will he say what form of Committee he proposes to set up?

Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether, having regard to the fact that the Government were beaten by nearly three to one, he proposes to disregard that entirely, and does he not think it a sufficient reason to set up a special Committee; and, if not, what is the use of private Members' Motions?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the question put by my hon. Friend (Sir J. Remnant) was answered by the question put to my hon. Friend who followed him. It is quite impossible to deal with this problem piecemeal. The Government have got to face the question as a whole. Whatever decision is taken with regard to one class of pensioners must be taken with regard to every class of public pensioner, and that is why the decision is a very serious one, especially in the present condition of the public finances. A decision taken might involve enormous additions to the public expenditure, and we could not accept the responsibility for that in the present state of the public finances. Therefore, we propose to consider very carefully dealing with cases of hardship, where the pension given is inadequate for the maintenance of life for people who are incapable of earning anything
for themselves. That we propose to consider, and we have appointed a Committee to examine it. It was appointed by the Cabinet for the purpose of examining the question, and advising the Cabinet on the subject. We must consider not merely the grievance, but the expense, and I hope the House will allow us to consider it very carefully, because the public expenditure is very heavy, and it is no use complaining of taxation in one Debate and in another Debate pressing for more expenditure. We must look at the whole question all round, and I really trust that my hon. Friends will permit us to examine it very carefully, from every point of view. It is quite impossible to decide it in respect of one class of officials only.

Sir J. REMNANT: We all know the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy in the matter, but may I ask whether he realises that there is a Committee appointed by his own Home Secretary which could deal with one section of this question, at all events, and report to him at once, and the delay in dealing with this matter may very seriously accelerate death amongst these old public servants of ours?

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, I think I can assure my hon. Friend that there is going to be no delay. We were discussing it very thoroughly to-day, with the assistance of the Treasury officials, and we decided that it required further investigation into the whole of the facts. To decide in respect of one class of officials would really be to decide in respect of all, and you cannot therefore leave it to one Committee dealing with one class of public pensioners; you must consider the whole.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Committee's investigations will be strictly confined to pensioners deriving their pensions from the State, or whether they will be extended to any other class of pensioners, as, for instance, those drawing pensions from the railway funds, and also whether the very similar position of persons deriving small sums from friendly societies or similar sources will be included?

The PRIME MINISTER: This illustrates the danger of giving way in respect of the principle, because once that is done, as the hon. Gentleman in his question
indicates, it will involve a most enormous burden on the State. Therefore, the Government have got to be very careful in the decision they take in this respect, because the moment they lay down a principle it would be very difficult to resist its further application.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is this a Departmental Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is a Cabinet Committee.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (TRAINING BOYS).

Mr. CHADWICK: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the supreme importance of wireless telegraphy as an element of safety to life at sea, he will arrange for the introduction of instruction in wireless telegraphy in all Government schools for boys, with a view to making large numbers of youths going to sea in all ratings sufficiently expert in wireless manipulation and signalling, that in the future it may be possible to relax the present law regarding special operators, which owing to the heavy expenditure involved is causing serious restriction in the use of the wireless telegraph on board ship?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I have been asked to answer this question. It would be quite impracticable to adopt the suggestion made in the question; but the Board of Education are prepared to approve suitable courses of training in technical schools or schools of nautical training for boys who desire to obtain the certificate of the Postmaster-General in wireless telegraphy.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Mr. HIGHAM: 38.
asked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state when the Select Committee on telephone efficiency and charges will be appointed; and if he can state the names of those who will constitute the Committee and their terms of reference?

The PRIME MINISTER: A scheme for the revision of telephone rates and charges generally, in the light of present
costs, is being prepared and will, I hope, be shortly completed. As soon as it is ready for presentation a Select Committee will be appointed to consider it.

TRADE UNIONS (COMBINATION).

Mr. HIGHAM: 39.
asked the Prime Minister if the Committee on Trusts is investigating the trade union combine in order that the people generally may be informed as to what extent this combine's restriction on output, their limitation of hours of employment, and the enormous increase of wages they have secured for those employed in the workshops and factories is increasing the cost of production; and what effect this action of the combine has on the present high cost of living?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.

Mr. HIGHAM: May I ask the Prime Minister why a combine such as the Triple Alliance should be less liable to investigation than any combination of capitalists?

Mr. DEVLIN: Do not answer.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTROL).

Mr. G. TERRELL: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to agree to a Select Committee being set up to examine and report as to whether the different Government Departments which were created during the War as War Departments or Departments of Control, and which still exist and exercise control over imports, industry, and necessaries of life, should be closed down?

The PRIME MINISTER: This subject is being most carefully watched by the Government, and in view of the completely abnormal conditions now prevailing, and which are changing from day to day, the Government are not at present prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS (BRITISH AID).

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: 43.
(Clitheroe)
asked the Prime Minister what are the amounts of aid extended to any foreign Governments in kind, cash, credit, or guarantees, directly or through the Supreme Economic Council or other inter-Allied bodies, since the Armistice; the purposes stipulated for the use of such aid; and the conditions on which it was granted?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be obliged if the hon. Member will communicate with the Secretary of the Treasury on this subject. I am advised that without a more precise indication of his wishes his question cannot be answered.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.

Mr. HAYDAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a further communication from the Consumers' Council asking for a reply to former representations that the Ministry of Food should be maintained and its powers strengthened; and whether a definite decision has yet been come to on this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last that the Government recognise that in present conditions the Ministry of Food must be continued in the meantime.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS IN AID).

Major BREESE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the increased burden upon local rates of the cost of administrative services due to the large advance in wages and clerical expenses, in respect, of which grants in aid are made by the State to local authorities, and of the cost of additional services to be administered locally under recent legislation, he will state whether it is proposed that such grants should be increased in proportion to the higher cost involved?

Mr. BALDWIN: The majority of the Exchequer grants to local authorities are
based upon the whole cost of the service in respect of which they are given, and in such cases an increase in the cost of the service of course results in a corresponding increase in the grant. If it is intended to suggest that grants should now be calculated on higher proportions of expenditure because of the general rise in rates, I would point out that taxation has increased to a far greater extent

LUNATIC PATIENTS.

Major BREESE: 47
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increase in cost of lunatic patients chargeable to boards of guardians maintained at lunatic asylums, the sum of 1s. per head repaid to the various unions under the Local Government Act, 1888, is wholly inadequate and throws a heavy burden upon local rates, he is prepared to introduce legislation to amend the said Act, so as to assure to boards of guardians at least 50 per cent. of the actual ascertained cost to them of every lunatic patient maintained in a county asylum?

The MINISTER OF HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to a similar question asked by the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. T. Davies) on the 1st instant.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

WHEAT.

Major STEEL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the great dissatisfaction amongst the farmers with the Government pronouncement as to the prices for wheat for the 1920 crop; whether he is aware that at the price offered wheat cannot be grown except at a loss, and that unless the price is raised thousands of acres of wheat land will be cross sown with oats or barley in order to render the wheat available for stock-feeding purposes, and will he reconsider the recent pronouncement?

The PRIME MINISTER: In order to remove the anxiety which has been expressed by farmers with regard to the price of the 1920 wheat crop the Government has decided that so long as wheat is still controlled and thereby deprived of a free market, the controlled price of
home-grown wheat of sound milling quality harvested in 1920 shall be the monthly average (c.i.f.) price of imported wheat of similar or comparable quality, provided that the price so paid to the home grower shall not exceed 95s. per quarter of 504 lbs.

FOOD PRICES.

Lieutenant - Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to take immediate and specific steps to lower the present inflated price of food; and whether he can state what officials are responsible for the congested state of British ports, entailing waste, delay, and in many cases decay of the prime necessities of life?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will take all possible steps to effect a reduction in the cost of living, but there is, unfortunately, no short cut to lower food prices. There is, however, some satisfaction to be gained by the knowledge that food prices in the United Kingdom are lower than those in other European countries. As regards the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to a Private Notice question by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle on Thursday last.

Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the, enormously inflated food prices are due in a great degree to the inaction of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: That suggestion has not the remotest relation to the facts.

MUTTON (IMPORTED).

Mr. MARRIOTT: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the advisability and possibility of diverting some portion of the supplies of imported mutton now accumulating at British ports to other countries where there is a great shortage of food?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The Board of Trade are prepared to entertain any proposals of this nature. France, Belgium and Italy have been furnished with all the meat their Governments are a tie to take, and in this way supplies have been diverted which otherwise would have come to the United Kingdom, but this amount is less than they anticipated
being able to absorb. Other proposals have been made on behalf of private firms and have broken down on finance. The matter is largely one for the Supreme Economic Council. A small quantity of mutton has been despatched to Vienna, via Hamburg, but there are difficulties in the way of cold storage accommodation and insulated wagons that would hinder large shipments, and it has to be remembered that the Continent demands beef in preference to mutton.

WHEAT EXTRACTION.

Mr. HAILWOOD: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any protests from representative Associations connected with the baking, trade against the Government's proposal to reduce the quality of flour by increasing the extraction of wheat to 80 per cent.; and whether he can see his way to postpone or abandon this proposal?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Ministry of Food has received only one protest from a bakers' association against the decision of the Government to increase the required extraction from wheat to 80 per cent. No objections have been raised by private individuals to the taking of this course. The Government are unable to see their way to suspend or abandon this decision.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Ts the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Manchester and certain other parts of Lancashire, and particularly at Stockport, the people are-very keen on having a white loaf

PEACE CONFERENCE.

BRITISH DELEGATION (COST).

Mr. DOYLE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state the entire cost of the British delegation in connection with the Peace Conference from the signing of the Armistice to the present time, with the number of the clerical staff, the maximum and minimum wages and salaries paid, the cost of hotels and other accommodation, and other details connected with these gatherings; and, if he is not in a position to give the figures now, when he will be able to give them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to this question is a very lengthy one, and perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL EEPORT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the answer includes or excludes the cost of all the motor cars to carry officials in Paris?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is a very detailed one.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that I have already called upon another hon. Member, who was rising to ask a question.

Mr. MARRIOTT: May I ask whether it is proposed to circulate as a White Paper the Economic Memorandum just published? It is very important, and I think hon. Members should have it.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I think that would be a very desirable course, and it shall be done.

Following is the answer:

The following statement gives the cost of the British Delegation to the Peace Conference at Paris, from December, 1918, to 30th September, 1919, the latest date to which complete accounts have been rendered:


Foreign Office.



£


Salaries and wages of temporary staff, travelling expenses and incidental charges
54,304


Office of Works.


Hire of hotels, provision of furniture, maintenance and repairs
205,964


Ministry of Food.


Cost of food and hotel service
87,620


Air Ministry.


Passenger and mail services by aeroplane (approximately)
103,000


Stationery Office.


Printing and binding, supplies of paper, printing plant, wages, and miscellaneous expenses
52,480*


Total
£503,368


* From this sum should be deducted the value of printing plant, type, and non-consumable stores returned to England amounting (after deducting 20 per cent. for depreciation) to approximately £14,000.

The total staff of the Delegation was 524, including the clerical staff, the maximum numbers of which were:


Temporary
…
…
124


Permanent
…
…
13

In addition to which, after the withdrawal of the Army Signal Corps at the end of June, 1919, there were 85 telephonists and telegraphists.

The maximum rate of salary (paid to two lady superintendents and one translator) was £5 a week, and the minimum rate was £1 a week (paid to girl guides who acted as, messengers in the offices of the British Delegation at the Hotel Astoria).

It should be added that the figures given above in respect of salaries refer only to the temporary staff. The salaries of those members of the staff who held permanent appointments in the Civil Service continued as charges upon the Votes of the Departments to which they belong.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. DOYLE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if, in order to further the cause of national economy, he will give the number of plurality office holders, the number of persons holding what may rightly be regarded as sinecures, and the number of highly-paid officials in departments founded to prosecute the War, but whose usefulness has ceased; and what steps he proposes taking to still further reform the public service and save the public unnecessary expenditure?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not aware of any persons coming within the terms of the first two parts of the question. As regards the reduction of staff, continuous efforts are made to reduce numbers wherever they can be spared.

HOUSING.

UNOCCUPIED DWELLING HOUSES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the increasing shortage of dwelling houses, the Government will take steps whereby local authorities may temporarily commandeer any dwelling houses which are being kept unoccupied, either with the object of securing a higher sale price at a later date, or pending conversion into
hotels, clubs, warehouses, or other premises?

Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The powers of local authorities to acquire land compulsorily extend to the acquisition of dwelling houses, and, as I stated in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend yesterday, I am recommending local authorities to exercise their powers of purchasing houses in suitable circumstances.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of purchase is a much heavier charge on the public purse than that of hiring, and also takes much longer time, and houses are wanted immediately?

SKILLED LABOUR—STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 52.
asked the Prime Minister to what extent housing schemes are now being held up owing to the lack of skilled labour?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Reports of the local officers of the Ministry of Health indicate that at the present moment the building of a large additional number of houses included in contracts already signed could be begun, and the progress of those houses which are now in course of construction could be accelerated if additional skilled labour were available. The additional number of skilled workmen immediately required on house building is approximately 5,500.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: If this position has arisen when plans have only been passed by the Ministry of Health for 50,000 houses, is it not certain to be far more grave when the whole scheme is thoroughly under weight, and it is necessary to build a quarter of a million houses?

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree. But it is not merely plans. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend these are tenders which have been accepted at the present time. No doubt it raises a very serious situation unless there is some relaxation of these trade union rules.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not possible to make an appeal to the whole of the trade unions concerned in the
building trade to suspend their rules with regard to dilution for a period of two years, in order to absorb the thousands of discharged soldiers who are only waiting to enter the building trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: I made an appeal in this House on the subject, and I afterwards appealed to trade union representatives. I made a direct appeal. I understand my right hon. Friend is interviewing them again in a few days—I hope he will be more successful in obtaining a relaxation of the rules.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to these men that it is their houses we are endeavouring to build, and, under these circumstances, might he not make one of his poster appeals throughout the country?

Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least 90 or 95 per cent. of the building trade are now engaged on other buildings than houses for the working classes.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think my hon. Friend is wrong there. Of course, there is a certain percentage—probably a high percentage—of building which is absolutely essential to the industrial development of the country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Cinemas.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is constantly being said, but the numbers engaged upon that work are exceedingly small.

Mr. ADAMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable portion of the men who have been trained to house building are engaged in other parts of the industrial system of this country at the present moment, and that the full complement of builders are not being employed in the building trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: Surely that is all the more reason why the hundreds of thousands of men who are unemployed, a good many of whom could give the most valuable assistance, should be utilised for this purpose?

Mr. ADAMSON: May I ask the Prime Minister if the reason for the employment of these men in other parts of the industrial. system is that they have not been able to find employment in the industry in which they have been trained?

The PRIME MINISTER: We certainly shall find no difficulty at all in finding employment for them. It is true there is a difficulty when they are taken away from house building, but that is aggravated by the refusal of the unions to allow a relaxation of the rules.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. HAYDAY: Those demonstrations do not help to get over the difficulty.

Mr. ADAMSON: May I put it to the Prime Minister that an attempt is being made to put the blame on the trade unions of the country, when the blame really lies with one of his own Departments?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my right hon. Friend thinks that, all he has got to do is to persuade the trade unions to withdraw this objection. Then there will be no blame attached to them.

Mr. ADAMSON: If we had the opportunity of discussing this matter, and fully going into it with the Prime Minister, I think we could prove that the fault lies at the door of one of his Departments.

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very glad to meet my right hon. Friend or anybody, and I will make this promise to him, if he will make a promise on his side, that if the blame rests with any Government official, we will deal with it. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman must give an undertaking that if the blame rests with the trade unions, he and his party will deal with it.

APPRENTICES.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a committee to report what steps are necessary to attract into the building trade apprentices in sufficient numbers to enable it to meet present and future demands for skilled labour?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Horne): The Resettlement Committee of the Industrial Council for the Building Industry appointed by the Ministry of Labour has recently had under consideration the matter raised in the hon. Member's question. The Committee presented an Interim Report in February, which states with regard to apprentices that there still exists a considerable discrepancy between the number
of apprentices who may be engaged under the existing joint working agreements between the unions and employers, and the number who are in fact already employed. The Committee have recommended, therefore, that an appeal should be made to employers to employ the full quota of apprentices allowed under existing arrangements, and to provide them with such intensive training as will speedily make them of economic value to the industry. This Report, which has just been received, is receiving my careful consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the Government shortly be able to bring forward a definite policy to deal with this matter?

Mr. J. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statistical table, which has been prepared and presented to the public by the secretary of the building operatives in this country, in which he offered to provide the whole of the labour necessary for the building of the houses year by year?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take such steps as will secure to these apprentices coming back from the War the possibility of completing their term of apprenticeship?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that these apprentices who have served in the War cannot live on the money they earn as apprentices, and that unless the Government comes in with a comprehensive scheme it is impossible to make up the shortage?

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. and gallant Member is surely unaware of what has taken place. There is an existing comprehensive scheme under which the Government docs make up for this particular purpose to within a shilling or two of a journeyman's pay.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Does not that apply only to those who commenced their apprenticeship before the War, and not to the men who missed their terms during the War?

Sir R. HORNE: It applies to and is to provide for those who commenced their apprenticeship and wish to complete it.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Which is one-fifth of the number!

LICENSING BILL.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 58.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to introduce the Licensing Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give an exact date, but it will not be before Easter.

BOLSHEVIK PROPAGANDA.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether he. is aware that a serious attempt to send representatives of Bolshevism to this country for the purpose of Bolshevist propaganda is under contemplation; and whether, if and when the attempt is made, such representatives will be prevented from landing in the United Kingdom?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have no specific information of any such attempt, but the desire of the Soviet Government to push propaganda in all countries is well known. If any representative is known or reasonably suspected to be coming for purposes of propaganda, permission to land will be refused.

CONSTANTINOPLE.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Governments of the countries at war with Turkey have appointed a High Commissioner to represent them at Constantinople; and, if so, will he give the name of the High Commissioner and the terms of his appointment?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is no single High Commissioner representing all the countries at war with Turkey. Great Britain, France, Italy, the United States, and Greece are each represented at Constantinople by a High Commissioner. His Majesty's High Commissioner is Vice-Admiral Sir J. M. de Robeck, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Naval Forces in the Mediterranean, who holds the two appointments concurrently. The duties of His Majesty's High Commissioner are to maintain with the Turkish Government relations of a strictly official character with a view to the execution of the Armistice and the protection of
British interests, and to collaborate with the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers for the maintenance of general order and security.

ARMENIA.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether the recent massacres at Marash have caused, or are likely to cause, any modification in the Allies' decision to allow those responsible for them, the Turks, to remain in possession and control of Constantinople: and whether any, and, if so, what measures have been, or will be, taken to prevent further massacres of Armenians?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that it would yet be advisable to make any statement in regard to the first part of the question. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on Monday last to a question by my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House be consulted before we enter into military commitments in Asia Minor? Will we have a chance of the facts being laid before the House? Might I have an answer?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask him if we have any guarantee that the Turks engaged in massacreing Armenians will stay their hand until this House pronounces an opinion?

PETROL SUPPLIES.

Viscount CURZON: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the chairman of the Anglo-Persion Oil Company to the effect that the contract under which his company undertakes to supply the Shell Trading Company with the whole of its output will expire in 1922, unless the Government should think fit in the meantime to interfere and declare that it is one in restraint of trade; and, in view of this statement and the effect of the enhanced price of petrol on trade and the cost of living, he will consider the advisability of interfering with this contract and secure the retail in this country of the whole of the output of this company free from the control of any oil trust and at the lowest possible figure?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I understand that this contract has now been in force for over seven years and was arranged at a time when the Anglo-Persian Oil Company had no other means of disposing of its production. I do not consider that His Majesty's Government can now intervene in the manner suggested.

CENTRAL CONTROL (LIQUOR) BOARD.

Mr. BROAD: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision of the Government to make certain proposals dealing with the liquor traffic, Members of this House may be supplied with complete information respecting the liquor control in the Carlisle area, which information the Central Control Board has refused to supply?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Central Control Board have already given very full information respecting the liquor control in the Carlisle area in numerous documents which have been published as Parliamentary Papers. When the Government's Bill is before the House, I have no doubt that such further information as may be necessary for its consideration will be forthcoming.

MANDATES (AFRICA AND ASIA).

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether any mandates have been definitely allotted to mandatories in Africa or Asia; and, if not, whether he will cause the matter to be raised before the Council of the League or other appropriate authority without delay?

The PRIME MINISTER: The distribution of the mandates between the Powers who are to hold them was, as my Noble Friend is aware, settled by the Supreme Council in Paris last summer; but it has not yet been possible to complete the preparation of all the instruments defining the terms of such mandates. I hope, however, that it may be possible to reach a definite agreement on this point shortly, so that the mandates may be signed at an early date.

COAL SUPPLY (IRELAND).

Captain REDMOND: (by Private Notice)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Ministry of Shipping what steps are being taken by the Shipping Controller to enable the. extra supply of coal allocated to Ireland to be shipped there without delay!

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): The Shipping Controller has added within the last few days thirteen additional ships to the amount of tonnage running to Ireland. These ships total about 11,000 tons cargo capacity, and should make more than one voyage a week. In addition, the priority which is now given to vessels loading cargoes of coal in South Wales to United Kingdom destinations should result in the tonnage, previously employed in the Irish trade carrying a considerably larger amount of coal.

Captain REDMOND: May I ask whether this extra tonnage will enable the three different areas in Ireland—the Northern, the Midland, and the Southern—to receive adequate supplies.

Colonel WILSON: Yes, Sir, the destination of the extra ships will be so allocated as to distribute the supply between all ports requiring coal in Ireland.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.

Brigadier-General CROFT: I beg to give notice that, on the Motion for Adjournment to-night, I will call attention to gross irregularities connected with the Ministry of Munitions, as I was precluded doing so last night.

STOCKPORT (WRIT).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask when it is proposed to move the writ for Stockport?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): To-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ADAMSON: Is there any intention on the part of the Government to change the business already announced as coming before the House next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The business next week will be that announced to the House by the Chairman of the Informal Committee carrying out the agreement come to on Monday last.

Commander BELLAIRS: In reference to the business for to-day as the Air Estimates take practically the whole of the Estimate Votes A, 1, 2, 3 and 4, can we not have the Air Board Vote at a later stage in order that the policy with regard to the Air Ministry may be discussed I

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government would be very glad that that should be done, but the Votes to be taken on Supply days must depend on the decision of the House.

PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES (CAPITAL ISSUES) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 47.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 47.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Captain Stafford Vere Hotchkin, for the County of Lincoln, County of the Parts of Lindsey (Horncastle Division).

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Macmaster to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill) and Mr. Rendall to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Ready-Money Football Betting Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

Order for Committee road.

MAJOR TRYON'S STATEMENT.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Tryon): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
The administration of all the Services of the Air both for peace and war are now united in a single Ministry. If war comes to this country, no longer an island, it will have to meet attacks on its towns, its factories, its communications, and its shipping, which no armies can stop and no battleships avert. In peace we shall find in our scattered Empire infinite possibilities for the development of our Air Service. The whole Empire will be brought nearer together by the power of the air. Within a few days of the Armistice the Royal Air Force set out to explore and to prepare the air route from Cairo to the Cape. The choice and preparation of air routes of the Empire raise questions of the commercial strategy of the air. These are the first annual Estimates which have been presented by the Air Service since the signature of Peace. During the War the Air expenditure rose to about £1,000,000 per day. Last year the cost was £54,030,850, and this year the Estimates amount to £21,056,930, which makes a reduction in twelve months of nearly £33,000,000. Included in the present Estimates there is a net charge for War liabilities of £5,883,500, so that for what might be called normal expenditure the net total for this year is £15,173,430, and in addition there are, of course, the separation allowances amounting to £566,000. I suggest that this is a remarkably close approximation to the programme for the next five years which was laid down at the rate of £15,166,500, not including the separation allowances. The amounts are almost identical. It is most important to remember that there are now included in this sum two very important services which in the days of the War were not chargeable to the Air Ministry. I refer to the provision, under Vote A, of a sum for civil aviation, amounting to £1,004,282, which, of course, was not in existence during the War,
and also to a sum set apart for Supply and Research work, which was done during the War by the Ministry of Munitions. It will be seen, therefore, that the present Vote includes three services—the fighting Service, civil aviation, and supply and research, of which the two last are additions to the work of the Ministry.
4.0 P.M.
In considering the cost of the Royal Air Force, it must be borne in mind that these two new branches necessarily add to the cost and to the work of the Air Ministry, and before going into the question of its cost, I should like to refer to the very valuable and very hard work which has been done, under the able guidance of Lord Londonderry, by the Finance Department of the Air Ministry in the-difficult work of preparing these Estimates during a time of transition and great pressure, and to the valuable assistance given to all branches of the Air Service by the Secretary's Department of the Air Ministry, under Sir Arthur Robinson, to whom I am much indebted. The combined process of demobilisation and reconstruction has been a great strain on all connected with the work of the Royal Air Force. It is quite true that in the new Estimates there is an increase of £185,000 to the cost of the Air Ministry, but to appreciate the truth, the following facts must be borne in mind. The Air Ministry have now taken over from the Ministry of Munitions the whole of the Supply and Research Services connected with the air, and these services represent an addition to our Estimates of £181,500. Moreover, the Ministry have-taken over the Meteorological Service, and this transfer accounts for a further increase of £50,000. The work of this office is obviously a national work, concerning not only the air, but a great many other branches of our national life. There are also minor items that were shown last year under different Votes. These now appear under the Air Ministry Vote and amount to about £12,000. It will be seen, therefore, that the additional services taken over by the Air Ministry Vote account for an increase of £243,000. If this additional sum is taken into account, the actual reduction on the original Estimate is £58,000. If the additional services are ignored and only the pre-Armistice Departments are taken into account, the reduction of the total staff of the Ministry
is from 4,660 at the date of the Armistice to 1,803 on 8th March this year, a reduction of 61 per cent. It must be borne in mind that this staff has to deal not only with clearing up all the liabilities of the War, but with the enormous task of building up in peace time an entirely new service.
I will now deal in turn with the three branches into which the work of the Air Ministry is divided, namely, the Department of the Chief of the Air Staff, the Department of Civil Aviation, and the Department of Supply and Research. I will take first the Department of the Chief of the Air Staff, under that distinguished and able officer, Air Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard, It includes, operations, intelligence, training, organisation, personnel, equipment, medical services, and other branches, including works and buildings. I should like to add my own tribute of admiration, not only to his work, but also to the unceasing devoted labours of the staff and of all ranks of the Royal Air Force. They are working untiringly at the most difficult task of training and reorganisation after the War and at the winding up of the surplus stations with a depleted staff. The senior officers of the Royal Air Force have a wide know-lodge of the methods of the other two Services, because, as a rule, they have already a long naval or military experience behind them. They come to us from the Navy or the Army. The leaders of the Air Force have developed a spirit of united enthusiasm for their new Service which is the very essence of its success. It is necessary to state how great are the difficulties which the Royal Air Force has to face and how impossible it is to compare these Estimates with those of the older Services. The Army had its pre-war training grounds considered and allotted long ago; its barracks were standing ready for its return from the War; its War Office buildings were available for the work of administration; Woolwich and Sandhurst were there to train its future officers; the Staff College, Military Schools, and rifle ranges were all there ready for use when peace came. The expenditure which created these essential facilities for the Army was spread over the Estimates of the distant past. The Royal Air Force, however, sprang into life during the War. The housing of its personnel was often
of a temporary kind, which is unavoidable in war; its training schools have to be created; its permanent quarters have to be designed and built; and unlike the natural growth of the other Services, the work has to be crowded into a short period, if the training of our future airmen is to proceed without delay and under the good conditions which the country should provide for those who serve it.
While this constructive work has been carried out, the reduction of the Force from a war to a peace footing has gone on most rapidly. There were on the 31st March, last year, 22,000 officers in the Royal Air Force. At the end of this month there will be 3,280. The normal strength of officers is 2,850, so that we are almost at our normal level. In the case of the other ranks, there were a year ago 160,000. It is thought that by the end of this month, unless shipping difficulties delay matters, that there will be only 25,000 left, and our normal peace strength is 23,300. There were a year ago 14,000 civil subordinates, and there are now 6,000, including natives, and those who are engaged in the staffing of stores, etc. Our normal establishment for this purpose is 5,500. A year ago there were 22,000 women in the Women's Royal Air Force, and at the end of this month this valuable Force will come to an end. Therefore, from a total of 104,000 a year ago we shall at the end of this month have come down to 34,280, and our normal strength is 31,500, so that the total reduction effected in the period is 129,720, a very remarkable reduction. The Royal Air Force has other work to give up. It has given up 149 aerodromes, 122 landing grounds, and 2,240 what are known technically as hirings, as a rule land and buildings. The problem of handing over our surplus equipment and stores has proved a vast and most difficult work.
In the midst of all these reductions, the work of rebuilding has been going on. Tentative establishments of units have been laid down for home and foreign stations, and these units are being brought up to strength. The replacing of War service men on ordinary engagements has been a very considerable undertaking. In the midst of all these great reductions and in the midst of this reorganisation, calls have come from the East for additional Air Forces. These calls have had to be met, and the Royal
Air Force has been in action in the past year in many parts of the world against the Afghan Mahsuds and Waziris. In the recent Afghan War the Royal Air Force are stated by the Commander-in-Chief to have appreciably shortened operations. In two days the Royal Air Force compelled the unconditional surrender of the Kharza Madda Khel. The services of the Force have been also most valuable in Egypt where by next April it is hoped that it will have seven squadrons of modern machines. A curious development of the work of the Royal Air Force has been the photographing of a serious outbreak on the Nile. The flooded area was clearly defined and the work of dealing with the difficulty was very much assisted. In Mesopotamia, to which full allusion has been made, the Force has been engaged in constant work in maintaining order and Communications, in making maps, and even in collecting revenue. A much appreciated reference to its co-operation has been made by the Civil Commissioner. In Russia during the last year the Force has been engaged in work of exceptional difficulty both in the south and in the north. In the north it gave great assistance in covering the evacuation. A feature that I ought to mention was the great success of the seaplanes in connection with the operations in the north.
We also heard from Aden some time ago that Colonel Jacobs' Commission had been captured and imprisoned, and that there was a serious plan being made for the despatch of a considerable force to relieve him. Fortunately, this was effected simply by the despatch of two aeroplanes, resulting in an enormous saving in every way. In the case of Somaliland—I should like to have gone more fully into it, but it has been already clearly stated to the House—twelve aeroplanes played a most decisive part, and in three weeks broke up the power of the Mullah over a district which he had devastated for 17 years at a very heavy cost in life and expenditure. The Force, therefore, has proved a most valuable addition to the methods by which in the future we may police our distant Empire. The enormous importance and value of the police work of the Royal Air Force in restoring order in scattered territories and the saving in both lives and in cost are most important developments, and
the extent to which the Royal Air Force is being employed on work of this kind must be borne in mind when considering the Estimates. At the beginning of 1919 there were five rigid and 87 non-rigid airships in commission and 14 stations. They are being reduced to a peace footing of one rigid and three non-rigid airships with one permanent station. The R 38, as the House knows, has been sold to the United States, and the R 34, within the last year, has accomplished the great feat of the double journey to America and back, encountering winds up to 50 and 60 miles an hour. She is still in commission. Progress has been made with the work of mooring these ships. The Colonial Governments are acquiring non-rigid airships for various purposes, including forest patrol and general survey work. I now come to the question of training.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: How many airships are there in commission?

Major TRYON: The proper establishment is one rigid and three non-rigid airships, but the others still exist.

Captain BENN: How many?

Major TRYON: I would rather that my hon. and gallant Friend asked a question as to the exact numbers, because I am going on in a regular sequence. I am very anxious to condense, because I want to give as much time as I can for the general discussion, and I have an enormous subject to cover. With regard to the training, the Royal Air Force Cadet College was opened at Cranwell on the 5th February this year. There are 52 cadets there, including 17 midshipmen who have been transferred from the Navy, and I shall be glad to hear from any hon. Members who would like to go down and see this college. This is an interesting point. A number of Royal Air Force officers have gone through a course of four terms at Cambridge, through the courtesy of the University Colleges, and I have read with much pleasure the excellent report that we have received on their work. The training of boys as mechanics is steadily going on at Halton, and a new system of entering these boys by nomination and examination by local authorities has already produced an excellent type of boy. These new enlistments are being sent to Cranwell, and hon. Members who go there can see these boys at their work at the same time as
they see the college. The closing of surplus stations has proved a huge work, but it is hoped that they will be all closed by the end of April, including those in France and Flanders. We are getting help from the Army and Navy with supplies of certain stores to avoid duplication where possible. To give an example: Rations, marine craft, torpedoes, machine guns and ammunition, clothing, petrol and oil, maps, and compasses. It is a notable example of our connection with both Services that three of these items come from the Army, three from the Navy and two from both Services. The Army is helping us with the storage of guns, the inspection of all our explosives, lands, certain forms of barrack equipment and with training of personnel for the medical, sanitary, and fire-fighting services, and in other ways.
Our scheme of co-operation with the other Services includes the training of Royal Air Force personnel for cooperation with the Navy and Army, and this question is taken into account in the distribution of our training centres. It is proposed to substitute Royal Air Force Units for considerable military forces in Mesopotamia if a considerable economy is found to be practicable and an important development is shown in the announcement that if the Royal Air Force supplies the main power involved the command will be held by a Royal Air Force officer. We now come to an important question, our work in connection with civil aviation. This Department of Controller General of Civil Aviation is under the able guidance of General Sir Frederick Sykes. The Department was created a little more than a year ago, and this distinguished officer has done most valuable work. The International Air Convention has been signed by Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, and by 25 other countries. Legislation will shortly be introduced to give effect in this country to the terms of the Convention. The activities of civil flying in this country include an Air Mail Service between England and Paris, which has been running since the 10th November, 1919. A service has also been maintained with Brussels, and it is hoped to establish a similar service with Holland and other countries. The cause of civil aviation has been helped by many important demonstrative flights showing the
possibilities of the future, such as the recent flight to Australia, the aeroplane flight across the Atlantic, and the gallant attempt now in progress to fly from Cairo to the Cape, to which we wish all success. It is a source of pride which I feel very strongly, that all these great enterprises radiate from this country. The Service side of the Royal Air Force has also helped the cause of civil aviation by the historical flights of the rigid airship R 34 in its double journey across the Atlantic, and by the flight to India, which has opened up the route.
The Department of Civil Aviation includes the distribution of Wireless Weather Reports, and constant touch was kept by wireless with the R.34 during her progress across the Atlantic. I wish I had time to refer to this in more detail. The Meteorological Office is now part of this Department. Its work is of great and growing importance. Maps, charts and navigational information were prepared for the aeroplane and the airship Atlantic flights, for the London to Australia, and Cape to Cairo routes, and for London to Paris and London to Brussels. A manual of aerial navigation is being prepared. At the same time progress is being made in other parts of the Empire; and in Canada, India and Australia Air Boards have been created. I am glad to say that British firms have secured considerable craft in South Africa, Scandinavia.
The air traffic between this country and the Continent carried, between August 26th and December 31st, 1919, £59,826 worth of imports and £31,185 worth of exports. This traffic consists mainly of clothing, and I can give no explanation of that fact. Two-thirds of our exports go to France and one-third to Belgium. The passengers carried were 603 to be Continent and 295 from the Continent, excluding mechanics. Aeroplanes or flying boats from this country have repeatedly visited India, Spain, Greece, Switzerland and Scandinavia.
My next point deals with aerodromes and the work of licensing. Every aerodrome, before civil use is made of it, must be inspected and licensed. One hundred and six licences have been granted, certificates of air-worthiness have been issued to 296 machines. What is believed to be the first Customs areodrome in the world
was started at Hounslow, and it is being moved to Waddon, near Croydon. Other Customs areodromes have been appointed at Cricklewood, Lympne and Felixstowe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) appealed last year for emergency landing grounds, and I am glad to say that out of the 123 required 109 have been provisionally selected up to 24th February of this year, and 164 sites were inspected. The figures of civil aviation in this country will no doubt be interesting to the Committee. Between 1st May, 1919 (when the War Restrictions were removed) and 21st January, 1920, there were 36,000 flights, 66,000 passengers were carried, and the mileage was 619,000. I am glad to say that the casualties have not been numerous. Four pilots, one passenger, and one third party have been killed. I recognise that the figures are not comparable, but it is interesting to note that in the last half of 1840, four years after railway travelling had begun, 153 passengers were killed or injured in railway accidents. The inspection of accidents is part of the work of the Civil Aviation Department. Experts are sent down to investigate them. A committee representing both the Ministry and the industry have drawn up rules for the competition to further the comfort and safety of air travel, and it is hoped that competition will begin on 1st August. A considerable grant has been obtained from the Treasury. It will be seen that the policy of the Air Ministry has been to assist civil aviation by preparing routes, aerodromes, lighthouses, weather reports, emergency landing grounds, signals and communications of all kinds, by supplying information to the trade of aerial developments in other countries, arranging demonstration flights, and by exploration of the air routes of the Empire. In short, we supply facilities which all the firms would have to combine and supply for themselves, if they did not get this, State assistance, but we leave full play to individual enterprise, and refrain from the policy of subsidy.
Coming to the Department of the Director-General of Supply and Research, this, the third work of the Air Ministry to which I shall now refer, is under the guidance of that able officer Air Vice-Marshal Ellington, who is doing most important work. This Department by its
work assists both the Royal Air Force and civil aviation. Its duties consist of research, inspection, and supply. It is responsible for all experimental and research work done by the Air Ministry and for advising the Controller-General of Civil Aviation as to the airworthiness certificates. It assists the civil industry by advice on experimental work and by criticism. It considers new designs for aircraft, which are submitted by firms for the Royal Air Force. Then there is the Directorate of Inspection, which is responsible for examining all materials and equipment ordered direct by the Air Ministry. Inspection of aircraft has necessarily to be far more delicate than the examination of other equipment used by the Forces of the Crown. It extends from the raw material, through the processes of manufacture, to the erection of the complete machine or engine, including the accuracy of adherence to the drawings, in order to secure interchange ability. The staff is also responsible for seeing that the so-called "subsequent" machines are built according to the specification of the typo originally tried out. The Supply Directorate places orders for experimental material for research for all aircraft equipment required by the Chief of the Air Staff, subject to the Contracts Advisory Branch, which makes contracts and superintends their fulfilment. In the absence of tenders, it investigates costs.
The Advisory Committee for Aeronautics has been abolished and has been replaced by the Aeronautical Committee with wide powers to carry out research. A scheme has been drawn up for the higher education of students in the science of aeronautics in connection with the establishment of the Zaharoff professorship of aeronautics at the Imperial College of Science. This is a postgraduate course. The establishment retained by this department are the Royal Aircraft establishment at Farnborough, which undertakes experimental work, research and tests. It could be used as a manufacturing establishment if necessary, and, I may add, it was during the War. We have also Martelsham Heath, where the military and civil testing of aeroplanes is conducted: Biggin Hill, for the development of wireless telegraphy in connection with aircraft, photography, testing instruments and navigation research; Grain, for testing seaplanes; Gosport, for testing torpedo work;
and Cardington, a Government construction station for seaplanes. Six types of experimental machines are now on hand. With the present small output of machines the cost of testing naturally appears to be high, as it is the examination of original new types which involves far more research than the subsequent examination of the reproductions of that type. There are a few other points which I must mention. There is a round sum provided for awards to inventors. There are war claims amounting to millions, and the larger awards are made by a Commission. That is really a War charge. There are considerable sums for building at Halton, where the boys are being trained. I regard it as essential for the well-being of the personnel that good accommodation should be provided for them, and not only good housing, but space for recreation. The welfare of the men who join the Royal Air Force is a national duty. For the majority of our skilled mechanics we have adopted a system of "boy entry."
What the future may have in store, none can see. The Air Service goes forward united, preparing for either peace or war. I should like to pay a tribute of respect and of admiration to the Air Officers Commanding at home and abroad and to the officers and other ranks who are maintaining to-day the high traditions of the Royal Air Force. They will, I believe, give to this country a force that will maintain, by its discipline, its training and its skill, the pre-eminent position this country has attained. Looking back at the early years of the Air Service we see that in this—the greatest product of mechanical skill and man's inventive genius—the greatest triumph of all is the courage of those early pioneers who, in the face of terrible losses, built the foundations of the Air Service of to-day.

Lieut-Colonel BURGOYNE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question and to add, instead thereof, the words,
in the opinion of this House, with a view to promoting the wider efficiency of the Air Services for both military and commercial purposes, the Royal Air Force should be placed under the control of an independent Department of State presided over by a Minister directly responsible to Parliament for his policy.
I hope my hon. Friend will permit me to congratulate him on the comprehensive survey of the work of his Department during the past year. After listening to
it, it seems almost an act of temerity in me to propose the Amendment which I have put on the Paper, but I remember that, whereas a Department may very well do admirable work and be able to show a fine record of accomplishment, it does not necessarily mean that the basis on which it is founded is the right one. The Amendment, I have the honour to submit, suggests that only in a completely independent Air Service can we hope to achieve that progress in aviation which both for military and commercial purposes is so essential for the future of this country and of the Empire. If I may judge by the opening remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend, in which he made reference to the independence of the Service as it existed to-day, that seems to me to be the guide to the line which the Minister may take up when he answers this Amendment. He may tell us that at the present the Service is entirely independent in so far as having a representative responsible directly to Parliament is concerned. He is that person. We can all appreciate the superman who is prepared to come down on the Monday as Secretary for Scotland, on Tuesday as the First Lord of the Admiralty, and on Wednesday as the Home Secretary, with a permanent commission as Prime Minister. But while that may fit the super-man, I venture to think that as far as this House is concerned, and it is this House, after all, which has to control expenditure whereby all these Departments alone can carry on, that we like to have an independent Minister whom we can attack in his individual capacity as being responsible directly for the particular Department under him. At present the right, hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has unflinchingly shouldered the responsibilities of two great offices of State, the efficiency of each of which is essential. I am not one of those who carp at the right hon. Gentleman for the immense expenditure that he put before the House for the Army the other day. I do not see in him one who desires to be a Napoleon in the future history of our race, and I join heartily with the House in congratulating him and the officers under him for doing what was an amazing thing indeed, which was, during the turmoil that naturally follows a great war, to have developed on a voluntary basis an army entirely fitted for the much greater needs of the country that exist to-day
than was the ease before the War. There I am with him. But whilst in his capacity as Secretary of State for War I gladly congratulate him on having found a permanent basis of policy, when we look at him as Secretary of State for Air we have some right to distrust that hesitancy which seems to be wavering between the various poles of indecision. On 22nd February he said:
I favour the steady increase of the Air Force at the expense of the Army and the Navy, and I believe that will be the tendency increasingly year by year, but I am sure that any such increase should only take place in proportion as the Air Force is actually able to discharge blocks of day-to-doy duties which are in fact discharged by the Army and the Navy now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February 1920; cols. 3353–4, vol. 125.]
That came as balm in Gilead to those who believed that in due course the surface Navy as we know it to-day is bound to be abolished, and that the Army as known in the past will disappear.
I do not go quite so far as that distinguished authority, Lord Fisher, who demands, "Scrap the Fleet!" One's interest in a fighting service is only the interest that one should have as long as it is the main and chief defence. If something better takes its place, that is the thing to concentrate on, and that is why I have concentrated on the Air Service. We want to see that the right hon. Gentleman is not paying lip service in his protestations of endeavour. I do not say he is, but it seems to me there are only two policies practical at the present time for attaining a happy equilibrium between the contending factors of Army, Navy, and Royal Air Force, the elder sisters and Cinderella of Imperial defence. There are only two lines of progress which can maintain the essential equipoise of relative values, and it is relative values which, we must remember, are most important at the present time. The first line is that there should be a supreme Minister of Defence responsible for all the fighting services of the Crown, and under him Under-Secretaries of State for War, Navy, and the Air Force, co-equal with one another and responsible to the Minister for Defence. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would take on this position without a wink; in fact, I believe it is one of the things he has at the back of his mind, and he would not do it so badly. The
second is that the Royal Air Force should be actually under a Minister as definite and separate from all other services of the State as the Army and Navy were in the old days. The right hon Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Air Ministry is the handmaiden of the War Office.
I propose, with the leave of the House, to examine some of the main objections to the present arrangement. These most naturally fall into two distinct categories—military and commercial. It is in the nature of our race that we cling to that to which we have become accustomed and look askance at anything new and likely to disturb the habits of a lifetime. Applying that principle to naval and military matters we have always discovered that when anything in the Army or the Navy seemed in danger of being relegated to the scrap heap, distinguished officers arise in fear and trembling and endeavour to stem the tide of progress by crabbing development and bolstering up the obsolete. That was the case in regard to the screw-propeller and I would remind the House that there was a time when the Admiralty having adopted the breech-loading gun gave way to the objections of senior officers at sea and reverted to the out-of-date muzzle-loader. The opposition in the senior ranks of the Army to high-explosive shells and the use of tanks is of too recent a date for me to recall it in detail to the memory of the House. When an officer of high standing comes forward with ideas beyond the ordinary he courts condemnation as a crank and a visionary. What greater soldier had we than Lord Roberts? He, wanted National Service, yet he was scoffed at. Sir Percy Scott pointed out the danger of submarines; he was ignored: whilst this distinguished officer, Lord Fisher, speaking of the surface vessels of the Navy tells us to scrap the lot and is laughed at. He may be a bit previous, but it is coming. I know that as a result of a lecture I gave about twenty years ago on the future of the submarine-boat, I received a letter from my chairman, Sir William White, then Chief Naval Constructor, in which he said I had better give up the study of submarines as they would all be on the scrap heap within ten years, showing how false a prophet of his distinction could be. I do not think anyone doubts the personal enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman
in flying matters. He is awfully fond of it. He has done a great deal of stunting and frequently goes up in the air. But I remember all the time, while I am keeping to the forefront his enthusiam, that he sits at the War Office surrounded by counsellors whose interests are purely military and that he is bound by association to be hampered by three factors arising from the present anomalous position. It is human nature. The first factor is that his military advisers will desire to sec the Air Force kept as an ancillary and auxiliary force to the Army. His military advisers would oppose any attempt to place the defence of the Empire in charge of the air. None of the old arms will appear to them as obsolete. Secondly, the natural tendency is to develop land machines to the disadvantage of machines for the sea, i.e. flying boats: Thirdly, as a result of that, the Admiralty by way of riposte will do its very best to get the Admiralty side of the Royal Air Force out of his hands, to split up the Service and bring it back again as it was originally in the days of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. There are here the seeds of dissension which everyone must see. The War Office can never efficiently run a Service requiring an element with which they are not familiar.
I turn from that to an admirable Memorandum issued in December by Air Marshall Sir Hugh Trenchard. He says:
The principle to be kept in mind in forming the framework of the Air Service is that in the future the main portion of it will consist of an independent Force together with service personnel required for carrying out Aeronautical research.
Here comes the cloven hoof—
["In addition there will be a small part of it specially trained for work with the Navy, and a small part specially trained for work with the Army, these two portions probably becoming in the future an arm of the older services."]
One or two other points I might deal with in extenso on the military side, which could be brought forward as arguments against the present situation. I want to know what the situation is going to be when the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Secretary of State for War, is finding it difficult to get the money he requires for the Army and yet has insistent calls from the Air Ministry?
When a demand is sent up from him, as Secretary of State for Air, to get
certain tugs and ships for carrying seaplanes for the Admiralty, what is to be the position? Is he to control them himself or to borrow them from the Admiralty? What will be the terms that the Admiralty will set up in matters of research? How is he to do the torpedo-dropping practice that is required by the particular squadrons allotted to Rosyth for that purpose? These are essential points. They can only be viewed from the naval standpoint. I cannot see him and the Admiralty working in close co-operation in that direction.
I turn from that to the commercial side. This problem is of even greater interest, and provides an infinitely bigger argument against the present anomalous position even than the military side. I come back to two lines of Air-Marshal Trenchard's memorandum. He says:
The Royal Air Force may be compared to the prophet Jonah's Gourd. The necessities of war created it in a night, but the economies of peace have, to a large extent, caused it to wither in a day, and we are now faced with the necessity of replacing it with a plant of deeper root. As in nature, bow-ever, decay fosters growth and the new plant, has a fruitful soil from which to spring.
In as far as the two senior services are concerned, the Army and the Navy, I do not think anyone could suggest for a moment that they are services which could be turned to a commercial profit. They might be described as an insurance premium of a colossol size paid for our national safety, but if we could get an assurance that there would never again be war, our Navy and Army, except for purposes of policing the land and sea, would entirely disappear. That is not the case in so far as the Air Service is concerned. There is no parallel in the history of military warfare to it. Here everything that is learnt from war in aeronautics can be applied for use in peace. What is being done? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Tryon) gave us a survey of the various activities of the Controller-General of Civil Aviation and he took special pride in the magnificent exploits of British pilots. Everyone will compliment those British pilots upon that, and whilst he did not say anything too much of the gallantry of those men and the dare-devilry of the feats they have performed he did rather suggest that other countries were not doing anything of a line nature. I could give an enormous number of instances where services have been opened in
all parts of the world for commercial purposes, and what is much more important is that while he claims that the Civil Service side of this Department is maintaining our supremacy in the Air he does not state that we are about the only country with a big Air Force which has refused to send air missions to other countries with a view to pushing our wares. The French, the Italians and the Americans have sent round missions throughout the States of South America and throughout Europe and are doing amazingly good business and we ought to do as much as that.
Another difficulty with which they have been faced is that they have allowed their surplus stores, which ought to have been used as travellers' samples, to be turned over to the Disposal Board. In Italy machines were handed back to their builders without any cost whatever, and they are sold in competition with British goods. That is a circumstance which ought to have been taken into consideration by the Secretary of State for War when discussing the disposal of their spare aircraft. That is not a sound policy. It is true that if they had handed the aeroplanes back to the builders they would have lost the value they have obtained for them on disposal, but there would have been this advantage, that if they had been sold to foreign buyers naturally there would have been repeat orders and work would have been given to British workmen and British designs would have come to the front. For fear it should be thought I am saying anything derogatory of those in charge of the civil aviation side, I may say that I know that anyone who has been in touch with General Sykes can bear testimony to the courtesy and the help and advice that he and those who have been associated with him have always given. The claim I put forward is twofold. The first is that that side is very much understaffed and that many of those who are on his staff are working at most inadequate wages. They are magnificent men doing it practically for nothing. Not nearly enough money has been given to that side of the question. Whilst I do not object to the high expenditure of the Army, I should have liked to see a few more millions taken away from that vast expenditure and handed over to the development of civil aviation. I am not in favour of these prize stunts.
The prizes are not big enough. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really imagine that any of the prizes for these long nights actually pay for the cost of getting them up? Nothing of the sort. It does not meet the charge at all. The charge can only be met by big firms, and those are not the ones we necessarily require to develop. What you want to develop is the best design.
Two other points occur to me on the subject of civil aviation. I think you would improve that service if the posts in the Department could be filled through the regular Civil Service with examinations which would include aviation as a special subject for those willing to qualify for that Department. My own view, having been there and talked to a number of them, is that the Civil Servant is an essential, and he is a very useful and businesslike asset where Government Departments are concerned. What the Civil Aviation Department is suffering from is a lack of them, and it is endeavouring to make up for it by a number of officers who have not the necessary experience, admirable and patriotic as is their work. With regard to the Air Act, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman understands that whereas it specifies the offences under the Act and the penalties which may follow, such as flying over prohibited areas, carrying passengers without a licence, or having an unregistered machine, there is no machinery by which offenders can be brought to justice or the specific penalties can be inflicted. That is a point the hon. and gallant Gentleman might look at.
I have made my case. It is twofold. The first is that, in so far as the military side is concerned, we can never expect aviation, which is essentially a thing apart altogether from the military or the naval side of our defences, to prosper when it is directly associated with and controlled by one or other of our great offensive and defensive Departments. The second is that since it is, in these times, a very great commercial asset, it is folly to associate its control with either the Army or the Navy. One is lather apt to be hypercritical. I recognise that this Department is quite a new thing. It is something which has only sprung up, as it were, in a night, and I am sure that the House very heartily congratulates the hon. and gallant Gentleman on
all the work that has been done We know how difficult it is to get things straight. I do not want the House to think I am finding fault, but I want to see to it that this has Department is not hampered by the clogging atmosphere that hangs round so many other Government Departments. We want it to be free to expand and to develop to a position as creditable to our race as were the old Army and the Navy. Whilst we may say the Army is sufficient and the Navy is sufficient, we can all pick holes in them. The answer is always given, "They have gone on like it for so many years." I plead with the right hon. Gentleman that, in so far as the Air Force is concerned, what we have to do in starting a new business is what we want to do in starting a new Department of State, which is to see that the machinery is as perfect as possible;, and that the map is correctly drawn, and build it up on a design that is up-to-date. Only in that way will you have efficiency.

Mr. RAPER: I beg to second the Amendment. I fully appreciate the fact that there are several other ex-Air Service pilots in the House, whose senior rank would certainly put them before me, but I understand they prefer to enter the Debate later on. When the present Government was constituted, what created more surprise than anything else was the fact that the Air Service was placed under the control of the War Office. There were a. good many protests, but in the times in which we now live epoch-making events come hard on each other's heels and public interest was very soon transferred to other matters, and it was left to but a few specially interested people to try to combat a move which we felt sure is seriously to the disadvantage and prejudice of the Air Service. To my mind the Air Service requires a separate Ministry for several reasons. The reasons which especially strike me are these. First of all, the Air Force is as different from the Army as the Navy is, and further, the work of the Air Force, taking into account its great possibilities from the point of view of both Peace and War, is of such great importance and involves problems of so complex a nature that it is certainly both wrong and unbusinesslike to subordinate it to another Department. If devolution of administration is necessary in the case of pensioners, which are administered by
a separate Department, how much more must it be necessary that the Air Force should have a Ministry of its own when it has to deal with so many more and far more complex problems. From the business point of view I do not think any industry under peace conditions look forward with any feeling of happiness or confidence to being under the War Office. It cannot but stifle, as it is stifling, commercial enterprise. I should not like the House to consider that I am in any way attacking the War Office, and my view is that the War Office is just as much to be pitied as the Air Service. I am quite sure it does not really like to have this extra responsibility of the Air Service to look after. I fully agree that there are only two satisfactory alternatives for dealing with the Air Service, that is either to have a separate Ministry or to have a Minister controlling defence with a general staff under him controlling the three different services. My hon. and gallant Friend (Major Tryon) referred to reconstruction work. I think all Air Service people will thoroughly agree with me that so far as the Air Service is concerned reconstruction spells something much more akin to destruction. One of the most serious features of the present control appears to me, as an ex-pilot, to be the terrible lack of skilled technical instructors and mechanics. Apparently the War Office is either unable or unwilling to appreciate the fact that the Air Service depends entirely upon mechanical science.

Major TRYON: What has that to do with the War Office?

5.0 P.M.

Mr. RAPER: The Secretary of State for War is responsible for it. Owing to the Government delay in formulating their policy for the Air Service and owing also to the manner in which they have handled this problem, the very best and the majority of the personnel of the old killed mechanics and technical instructors are no longer to be found in the Air Force, and I am sure there is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any ex-Air Service pilot in this country that the awful disaster which took place in Egypt, as well as the catastrophe of a much more recent date of the flight to Ireland, was solely and entirely due to inefficient mechanics. Unless this difficulty is very soon overcome we shall have more catastrophes of this nature, quite apart from the fact that there will be a very
large wastage of public money from improper handling of machines and stores. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Tryon) told us about Halton and Cranwell, and invited us to pay a visit. The present mechanics, or the mechanics of the future, are being trained at Halton. My view of Halton is that you have an officer in charge, an extremely efficient engineering officer, but under him he has a totally inadequate and totally inefficient staff. I go further; I believe I am right in saying that to a great extent the instruction that has lately been given at Halton for the boy mechanics has to a certain extent been given by other boys, whose entire qualification consists of a few weeks' or months' training which they have received themselves. Apart from this, which in itself is quite a serious thing, I was simply dumbfounded and amazed when, in reply to a question which I put to him, my hon. and gallant Friend informed the House that the Government, apparently, know nothing about the German regulations regarding construction of aeroplanes. I believe he will find the statement I make is correct, that every commercial machine that is being manufactured in Germany has to be built to a specification which enables it to be very easily converted into a war machine. Apparently, he does not consider that this is a sufficiently important matter for us to consider, following Germany's lead. He rather inferred that our present commercial machines could easily be converted into war machines. That is absolutely incorrect. The large majority of our commercial machines recently constructed, and still under construction, could not be converted into war machines, except with very great difficulty, and in many cases they would be quite unsuitable. There must be but one policy for the Air Service. For the safety and the honour of the Empire we must be second to none, and to achieve this result it is essential that we should have proper control of the administration.

Major-General SEELY: First of all, I should like to join with my hon. and gallant Friends in congratulating the Under-Secretary for Air on his admirable speech in introducing the Estimates. It was convincing and short, but packed full of facts. I have never heard a better statement or a better presentment of a
case for any Estimates. Having said that I must say at once that I do not approve of the Estimates, for the very simple reason that we are being asked to vote £21,000,000 for services which do not give us what we want, and I shall try to show-that in a very few words. We are asked to vote £21,000,000, of which, as the Secretary of State for War and Air points out in his memorandum, a little less than £16,000,000 is permanent expenditure. £6,000,000 approximately being for War services which are now being wound up. Some hon. Members may quarrel with the total. I am not here to do that. What I am here to quarrel with is the fact that we are not getting what we ought to have, whatever the sum paid may be. We are drifting into a position of extreme danger from the point of view of national defence, and I. shall try to prove that, especially from two points of view, both originating in a common cause.
First of all, I make the assertion that the naval side of the Air business is being scandalously neglected. It is often thought that there is competition between the Air and the Navy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that we always have been, and I hope always shall be, a great Naval Power makes it the more imperative for us to use air power in conjunction with sea power to the utmost. We cannot have a better instance of it than what has happened in the last few weeks and days. This country, by the consent of all parties, Liberal, Conservative and Labour, is committed to the view that we must-protect the Armenians; and that we must protect from massacres and misgovernment those unfortunate people whom the Turks have been misgoverning for centuries. It was said constantly in the Debate the other day that we cannot move the Turks from Constantinople because, if you take him away, he would not be, or his governing power would not be, under the guns of the Fleet. But, as has been pointed out again and again, by the more enterprising spirits in the Navy, the fact of the power of man to leave the surface of the ground gives a range to the guns of your Fleet, not of 20 miles, but of 300 miles. If proper arrangements are made, a combination of sea and air power is decisive in almost any theatre of possible war in which we may be engaged. That is not being done. No doubt when the Secretary of State
replies he will tell us what has been done, but I know that what ought to have been done has not been done. The close co-operation and the assistance of the Admiralty with the Air Ministry with a view to securing an adequate Air Force to co-operate with the Fleet has not been secured, and it is a fact, I know, that not only in the. power to destroy certain ships by means of torpedoes has the whole thing been allowed almost to lapse, but no other progress has been made, although this is admittedly one of the most important war advances in the power of the air that we have seen in our lifetime. Also the provision of aeroplanes and seaplanes carried on ships ready to start from any point, as, for instance, the Bosphorus, has been greatly neglected. The result has been that our arm has been paralysed in Eastern Europe, and it is not going too far to say that thousands of Armenian lives could have been saved if we had had the foresight to devote much more of the sums asked for in respect of the navy, the army and the air, to the provision of seaplanes and aeroplanes operating with the Navy.
The next reason I give for saying that these air estimates are gravely unsatistory is this. The Committee will remember that after the South African War a Committee called the Norman Committee was set up to find out why our defensive arrangements were in such a very inadequate position at the outbreak of that war. The Committee may remember that there was very great anger that our arrangements were not better, and the Government of the day accordingly appointed this Committee, on the findings of which all our defensive arrangements have since been planned. The Report was accepted "by the Government at that time, and it has been acted on ever since. The Report found that there should be a power of expansion of our defensive force beyond the Regular Forces of the Crown. In the case of the Navy and the Army that power, of course, is there. In the case of the Navy, as was shown in the late War, it was automatically expanded very rapidly directly the War broke out. It is not going too far to say that, had it not been for the Mercantile Marine, we should never have maintained the blockade, and should never have overcome the submarine menace; in fact, we should have
been defeated at sea if we had not had our great Mercantile Marine. In the case of the Army, on the recommendation of that Committee the Territorial Force was formed, so that in the event of war the Regular Forces of the Crown can be almost doubled at once, and not only doubled in the number of men, but the organisation itself is capable of largo expansion. In the case of the Navy and the Army we have the power of expansion recommended by the Norman Committee; but in the Air Service we have no such power of expansion.
So far as my information goes, in the case of Germany, France, Italy and, I think, America—upon this I have not such precise information—they have most definite plans to ensure this power of expansion. They have definite plans to ensure that there shall be an expansion of the Air Force outside their own regulas forces. In the case of France they give considerable subsidies based on the speed of aeroplanes, and their weight carrying power. They also give mail contracts to certain services, and they give direct subsidies to any service which runs with machines which may be of value to them in the event of war. In the case of Germany they pursue a similar policy on a greater scale. Italy is also pursuing the same policy. The result of that is that in France, in Germany, in Italy and, I believe, in some other countries, they have at this moment a very large number of firms with big designing staffs, all engaged in producing air craft and designing fresh methods of making air travelling safer and more certain. Listening to the hon. and gallant Member who introduced the Estimates, one might have thought that something of the sort was going on here. It is not so, I regret to say. The air industry in this country is dying; it is withering away, and it is a most sad thing that it should be so, and it is also a very dangerous thing. Of the great firms which were producing aircraft and which had great designing staffs—and it is on design that your future in the air depends—nearly all have gone out of business. There remains one good big designing staff, almost as big as before, one other not greatly depleted, another now is reduced to only 14 persons, and in the case of a
great many others their designing staffs have been altogether dispersed.
The position therefore is that this country, unlike other countries, has nothing to fall back upon except for the very few firms that now survive. We are not concerned with the financial aspect of the matter. It does not matter very much to the country, from the point of view of finance, whether these firms are engaged in making bicycles or aeroplanes, but it does matter very much from the point of view of national defence, and I make this assertion with great regret—that the aeroplane industry in this country is withering away. On those two grounds I say that the Estimates are unsatisfactory. They both have a common cause. That cause is the arrangement made by the Prime Minister, whom I am glad to see in his place, with whom I have no quarrel but this quarrel—though this will persist until the matter is put right—as to the arrangement under which he makes his right hon. Friend on his right (Mr. Churchill) a pluralist, contrary to the decision of Parliament, the declarations of his own colleagues and the declaration of himself. And it has had this direct result in the short time during which the arrangement has existed. First of all—may I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention? I remember very well the right hon. Gentleman even rebuking the Clerk at the Table for speaking, and perhaps he will permit me, not to rebuke him, but to ask his attention for a few moments.
The arrangement come to, which I am sure the Prime Minister made with the best intentions, has produced two results: first, the naval side of the air business has been, grossly neglected, with the result that it has not been able to do the things which it would have done in Eastern Europe, and several thousand Armenians are now dead who probably would have been alive if a proper arrangement had been made, and, second, that the whole aeroplane industry of the country is withering away. We know well that the Admiralty so dislike this arrangement that they dig their toes in—to use a popular phrase—and the result of that attitude must be a lack of cooperation. We also know that successive Secretaries of State for War have worked ten, twelve and fourteen hours
a day at their job and have never had any time to spare. How-comes it about that at a time of exceptional trouble and difficulty, when Europe is a seething cauldron, and our military problems are more complicated than they have ever been, that a Secretary of State can have time to attend to a big independent Department, involving an expenditure of £21,000,000, and with an actual Ministry under his control costing nearly £1,000,000 a year. I said some months ago that it was an arrangement which I could not work and which I believed nobody could work, and that it would have disastrous results.
Those disastrous results have already begun to be apparent to the world, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision. More than 120 Members of this House have signed a protest against it. Most of them support the right hon. Gentleman in everything else. There are a good many others who signed it, who disagree with him in everything else—like my hon. and gallant Friend on my left (Captain W. Benn). But we cannot delay any longer. The thing is becoming really a scandal. It is no good the hon. and gallant Gentleman introducing his Estimates and making an admirably effective speech when all the time his other efforts are hampered by his inability to get decisions. I know perfectly well that the thing is going from bad to worse. The difficulty of getting decisions from the right hon. Gentleman, who is supposed to do two things at once, is becoming more and more acute. Public money is being wasted and defence arrangements are going from bad to worse. I believe that the proper solution would be to have a Ministry of Defence with a joint staff. I believe that that would be a reasonable arrangement and a wiser arrangement, and it would certainly be economical. But to set up a Ministry like the Air Ministry, on a great scale, costing £1,000,000 in itself and spending £21,000,000, and handing it over to the few spare moments of a busy Minister, who nevertheless exercises supreme control and does not allow any decision to be taken without a personal reference to himself, is in my judgment trifling with the defence of the country.

Commander BELLAIRS: Before I pass to the speech of my right hon. Friend I should like to put on record
one question to the Under-Secretary for the Air. We had no figures given to us as to what the Dominions and India are doing and did not get the information which is necessary to obtain a complete view of the situation. My right hon. and gallant Friend (Major-General Seely) has made a very disquieting statement. He told us, and he spoke obviously with inside knowledge, that the aeroplane industry is withering away, and that the Navy is not getting what it wants in regard to the necessary Air Services which ought to be rendered to it in the future. If that is correct it is important to know what are the causes of it. We have had in succession two gallant officers of the Army as Under-Secretary for the Air. I happen to know both of them, and they are convinced of the value of sea power to this country, and I know their personal opinions to be such that they would always put the Navy before the Army. The reason given by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion and by my right hon. and gallant Friend is that the association of the Air Service under the Secretary of State for War is the chief cause of our difficulties.
What the Navy would ask of the Air Service is to provide the necessary aeroplanes for the purpose of acting with the feet and helping to maintain command of the sea, for the purpose of watching the gunnery results when the fleet is operating, for attacking the enemy's fleet with torpedoes, for warding off similar attacks and for carrying on expeditions inland based on the Navy, such as those which my right hon. and gallant Friend mentioned when dealing with the Armenian massacres. I agree with him that rather than have the present arrangement with the Secretary of State for War in charge of both the Army and the Air Service it would be far better to let the Defence Committee co-ordinate the three Services, with the Prime Minister himself as Chairman of the Defence Committee when he has time. Everybody knows that he has been utterly overworked at the Peace Conference and in everything else, but a time must come when he will be able to do the necessary work as between the three Services and bring the Defence Committee together.
The Secretary of State for War now presides not only over the regions that Cæsar knew, but also over the regions that Cæsar never knew. He also desires to
preside over the Navy as well. That would mean far too powerful a Minister under the Prime Minister, and I doubt whether he would sanction that. My right hon. and gallant Friend tells us that the aeroplane industry is withering away, that the Navy is not getting what it wants, and certainly it is not because the Treasury has stinted the Air Ministry of funds. I confess that I was startled by the figures. In Vote 5 the expenditure on the Air Ministry is far and away in excess of what it used to be for the War Office and Admiralty. There is an in crease of £186,000. The hon. and gallant Member may tell us that we have in that the transfer of another Department from the Ministry of Munitions, but that still leaves us £703,000 for the Air Ministry, which is an increase of £13,000 on the War year of last year.

Major TRYON: The hon. and gallant Member has forgotten the Meteorological Department.

Commander BELLAIRS: The Meteorological Department is not a large, expensive Department. Another thing which I may point out to my hon. and gallant Friend is that in the War Estimates you had war bonuses and overtime. You have none of these items this year, and the whole of this money is being provided for a. force which will number 2,850 officers and 23,300 men. The hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Lieut.-Colonel Burgoyne), who moved this Motion, stated that with that expenditure we had an entirely inadequate and underpaid War staff. Then where does the money go? It is certainly a very large sum.
I referred just now to what the Navy would ask for in the way of material assistance. I am satisfied that the Prime Minister will never have a persistent demand from the Navy to have these air services put under the Navy. The Navy will recognise that the Air Service should be under a separate Minister, but what the Navy will ask is that it shall get those things which it rightly wants, that it shall be able to practice manœuvres during peace with the aircraft which it wants, and that when the aircraft are engaged on exclusively naval service the discipline of those officers and men who are engaged will be entirely under the Navy. That is all
essential. In bygone years we had great difficulties when we shipped officers and men from the artillery, and Nelson and St. Vincent complained bitterly of the behaviour of what they called the "artillery boys." We cannot have a semi-independent service in the Navy when it is doing vital naval work, and in a similar manner when the Air Service is playing a subordinate part to the Army it must necessarily be under the Army chiefs. We have arrived at a point when we must recognise that the Navy is no longer the sole defence of this country. In 1649 Lord Halifax said that the first article in the creed of every Englishman should be his belief in the sea. Now we may say that the first article in the creed of every Englishman should be his belief in the sea and the air. My right hon. and gallant Friend spoke just now of aeroplanes carrying torpedoes, and the vital effect that they exercise against capital ships. Those aeroplanes carrying torpedoes have a far more vital effect than any submarine. They play a much more important part and are a far more vital threat to an enemy. In 1913, writing in the "Quarterly Review," I ventured to say that the aeroplane would supersede the destroyer and be a successful means of preventing what would be the obvious tactics of the German fleet in war, that is, to withdraw and get an advantageous position on the bow in relation to our own chasing fleet. These aeroplanes will be required in large numbers to get in proper position in reference to the withdrawing fleet and threaten that fleet with torpedoes from both bows so that the enemy finds itself advancing to meet the dangerous torpedoes.
If I may be permitted what is so perilously near to a bull, I should say that the Air Ministry is breaking new ground. It is a new Ministry, and it can set a great example to both the Army and the Navy. I have for a long time thought that this House and the Treasury are entirely on the wrong tack in trying to enforce economy. By their constant system of checks on officers and men, by hunting them for the loss of a broom or anything of that sort, they make enemies of the officers. They teach them that economy is not their business, but the business of the Treasury. The result is that the two
get into hostile camps. It would be much better if you laid it down, as a rule, that no officer can be an efficient officer unless he is an economist as well. Nelson's captains tried it themselves by an almost miserly saving of their spars and sails and never getting into dockyard hands. I think that that spirit can be got in both the Army and the Navy and the Air Service; and as the Air Service is a new Ministry, I hope that the Secretary of State for the Air will try to get that principle established, so that the Treasury may look upon the officers as allies, and cease the continual and costly system of checks. Years ago, when the dispute was in progress about cutting down the Navy Estimates—a dispute which resulted in the retirement of Mr. Gladstone—attention was called to the fact that there had been a Treasury Committee to investigate the expenditure on the Navy. The Admiralty were not able to put their hand on the document when Lord Acton and Mr. Gladstone applied for it which is an interesting revelation of how badly they kept their references and filing systems. I know the document well as a long Report made in 1859. The Admiralty of that day, instead of treating that meeting of British officials as an enemy, gave it every possible assistance, and the Treasury Committee reported strongly in their favour. This is the spirit which the new Air Ministry should adopt as an example to the older services.

Brigadier-General WIGAN: Although there is only one Minister responsible for both the War Office and the Air Ministry, in practice, as far as I can judge, they appear to me to be watertight compartments. I will give the House an illustration. In North Berkshire there are two large stores. One is at Didcot, under the War Office, where they employ about 900 men. Adjoining this store is another store, under the Air Force, where some 500 or 600 men are employed. For the two stores there are entirely different conditions as regard labour and payment and the number of hours worked. The unskilled labourer at Didcot was receiving 47s. 6d. per week. At the other stores similar labour receives 55s. 6d. per week. I brought this anomaly before the notice of the Secretary of State for War and before the Under-Secretary of State for Air, and I brought it also before the National Com-Committee on Expenditure. The only
result was that in some ways matters were slightly improved. The War Office wages were raised to bring them more nearly on a level with those of the Air Force. But even now the War Office employé not only works more hours a week than the Air Force employé, but receives 3s. a week less pay for doing it. Another anomaly is that I believe at Didcot no allowance is made for travelling beyond 10½ miles radius. On the other-hand, at Milton, under the Air Force, two hours a day were allowed for travelling. In addition to that, men were brought by train from Reading, a distance of nearly 18 to 20 miles, each day. That meant that the labourers at Milton travelled something like 40 miles a day to and from their work.
Again, the War Office ordnance stores, which are very much the larger, have only four motor lorries. The Air Force seem to think it necessary to have something like fifty. Out of that total of fifty lorries, seven are employed daily in bringing men to and from work at Milton. The reason for that is, I believe, that there are no houses in Milton or Didcot. I will read an extract from a letter from a county surveyor, which was written on 31st January last to the Chief Engineer of the Joint Roads Committee. He writes:

"Dear Sir,

DAMAGE TO ROADS BY AIR MINISTRY MOTOR LORRIES, ABINGDON AND MILTON.

I was in the neighbourhood of Milton and found the work nearly completed. It seems to me an absolute scandal to think that these roads should be damaged for the sake of running a few workmen from Milton to Abingdon daily, when there is hutting accommodation for at least 2,000 at Milton. I do hope you will bring some pressure to bear and stop these lorries, otherwise there must be a heavy claim for damage to the roads."

I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened the Debate today, that since he considers it was his duty to provide accommodation for boys—I think he said at Croydon—as to what action he is taking to provide accommodation for these men fit Milton and Didcot. If they had accommodation there, the men would be more comfortable. Moreover, it would save the taxpayer expense, and it would enable the men to put in a proper week's work. I do not think the House will consider that 36 hours a week is the right amount of labour for the taxpayer to receive. It seems to me extraordinary,
with one Minister responsible for the two Departments, that for similar labour in the same neighbourhood there should be absolutely different conditions for that labour, and I trust that the Minister will give this matter his earnest attention.

Lord HUGH CECIL: The very interesting statement of my hon. and gallant Friend who began the Debate this afternoon covered a very wide ground, and will no doubt be properly discussed when we are in Committee on Vote A, or on the Vote relating to the particular matters which were raised. I think this speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken would have been more appropriate, perhaps, had he delivered it in Committee of Supply, rather than on the question of Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, which is a more convenient opportunity for dealing with the questions of policy. The question of civil aviation by itself might be discussed at great lengths, and the only observation that at this stage I would like to make on that most important matter is, that I hope the Government will not spend money in the present year, or in the next two or three financial years, on civil aviation further than is necessary to prevent the industry or art collapsing. Undoubtedly, something must be done to keep the thing going. On the other hand, it is precisely one of those things on which it may be proper to spend money liberally, if the country had the money available, but it is not one of those necessaries which ought to be developed now that economy is our first consideration, When the Government are able to spend money, I should like them to develop something resembling what used to be called in other branches of education a normal school, that is, a typical aerodrome, which should teach in the best possible way, should display the care of aeroplanes to the highest possibles perfection, and make such tests and experiments as might be necessary in the interests of civil aviation; and I think that in that way they would spend money much more usefully than by any direct encouragement they might give to private enterprise. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that it was not proposed to spend any money on subsidies. I believe that would be a very unwise course. I should have liked to have heard the hon. Gentleman develop his observations a little further about the
conversion of aeroplanes, suitable for civil aviation, into aeroplanes suitable for war.
I am no more than an ignoramus on these questions. But I should have thought it was exceedingly difficult to build an aeroplane, useful for civil work which could, by any process much more convenient than rebuilding the whole thing, be converted into a war aeroplane. Fundamentally, what you need for civil aviation, is the opposite of what you need for war aviation. For civil aviation you want great security, but not necessarily great speed, and you want great weight-carrying capacity. I should have liked to have heard what possibility there is of the conversion of civil aeroplanes. I should also have liked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to have said a little more of the plans of the Government and the Air Ministry for dealing with uncivilised warfare. In his anxiety to spare the time of the House he made his statement rather rapidly, and possibly I may have missed some observations. But I did not hear him say anything pointing out what truly is a very important consideration, namely, that the aeroplane in uncivilised warfare would play quite a different part, and I should suppose an even more important part, than it plays in highly-civilised warfare. I should have thought that it would have been possible to build an aeroplane, not to fly at great speed or great height, but an aeroplane of considerable weight-carrying capacity which it would be possible to armour sufficiently to make it almost independent of rifle fire. Such an aeroplane might be made very formidable indeed by low flying against any uncivilised enemy. Certainly, from what we have heard of recent operations in India it seems that the aeroplanes fought mainly by dropping bombs. I should have thought it was possible to use low-flying to a much greater extent. It might become in the end a most valuable and economical arm of the British Empire in performing the vast military police work that is necessary.
All this matter belongs to the general discussion and does not deal with the precise Amendment which has been moved. The question with which we are mainly concerned at present is, whether the present system of uniting in a single person the Secretary of State for Air and the Secretary of State for War is wise
or unwise. Let me say at once if there is anyone who could make such a system successful it is my right hon. Friend, partly because he is a person of unusual energy, and partly because he has a very strong and sincere interest in the air and in the Air Force. Nevertheless I am convinced that it is a bad plan and that it is at least a most dangerous precedent to set. The right hon. Gentleman may be followed by some man with much less interest in the air, and much less versatile energy, and less capable, therefore, of bearing the double burden. I am sure, I need not enforce on my right hon. Friend, as he is converted personally, the immense importance of the Air Force being independent of the Navy and the Army. That independence arises out of the fact that both on its materiel side in respect of aeroplanes and the scientific technicalities connected with aviation, wireless telegraphy and the like, it is a highly technical and scientific force, and partly, and mainly, because the whole morale and discipline and training for it must be entirely different in the Air Force from that prevailing either in the Navy or in the Army. The fundamental heresy which I think still clings around the minds of some senior officers in the Army and the Navy is that a pilot is nothing but an officer in an aeroplane. He might be in a motor car, but he is a distinct person and quite unlike the soldier or the sailor. In saying that, I do not deny that there are conveniences in a single force and inconveniences in an independent force. Formerly there was no distinction between the Navy and the Army, and in the reign of Charles II. a young nobleman commanded both the Army and the Navy, though not very much to the advantage of either. So now it is necessary, just as that system was found to be ineffective as the two services became more and more divided, to insist on the independence of the Air Force.
The truth is that you will find in the Air Force a necessary individualism, because the flying officer must rely on himself, and there is, though perhaps it is only temporary, a certain contempt of anybody who is not able to do the things that he is able to do. The people who can fly have, by reason of that achievement, a superiority of which they are conscious over other people, and which we do not find in social life elsewhere. There is a feeling among them, if an officer, however
distinguished, comes from the Army or Navy to speak to them or exercise influence over them, that this person is on a lower order because he cannot fly, and that he comes to them to exhort them without that knowledge. There is thus resentment which strikes at the root of any disciplinary force. Discipline can never be maintained merely by authority or by penalties. It must be maintained if it is felt to be necessary. The sort of discipline which the Air Force wants will always be quite different from that which is necessary for the Navy or the Army. The self-reliance necessary for the Air Force officer will always make him look for quite a different sort of control and influence in his superiors that that which belongs to military or naval tradition. If you put a force of that character under the supreme authority of those who are essentially soldiers or sailors, you would at once find, what you did find as long as the Air Force was under the Navy or the Army, all sort of dislocation. First of all, the Admiralty and the Army Council do not understand the material needs, or know anything about the necessity of improvements in the Air Force. That had to be done by pressure from below, and there was no spontaneous initiative from above. The Director-General of Aeronautics, as he was called, was in the false position of having to ask for things instead of being part of a machine which received its propulsion from above. Similarly, there was all through the first years of the War difficulty as to the Royal Navy and the Flying Corps. Anybody who had any connection "with the matter could not help seeing that officers of military training were constantly at fault finding themselves in a world to which they were unaccustomed and unable to see what was the remedy for those very evils which they criticised.
If that is so, is it expedient that the Air Force and the Air Ministry, although a distant Service should be united in the person of the Secretary of State for War. I think it is a mischievous position. Some Secretaries of State for War, at any rate, would fall under the military influence of their Army advisers. If that was so, the Air Force would at once sink into a Department of the Army, and the worst of Departments, a step-child. The worst of all relationships is the relationship which is subordinate without having any real hold of the authority. The War
Office would be rather hostile and critical of the Air Ministry and Air Force, and still would have influence over the Ministry of Air and the Air Force by indirect control over the Secretary of State. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that it is quite a common experience to see Parliamentary Ministers fall tremendously into the hands of the Departments over which they nominally preside, so that they become saturated with the spirit of the Department of which they are the nominal heads. So, from that point of view, they would be a great danger. I am not sure there would not be still greater danger if the whole time of the Secretary of State is taken up by the War Office, and if the Air Ministry is constantly left to manage its own concerns. Although my right hon. Friend has exceptional energy, I cannot believe even now he is really the head of the Air Ministry as the Secretary for Air ought to be. He will not suspect me of any distrust in his own powers when I say that however influential or whatever knowledge he may have, it is not desirable that a permanent officer of the Crown should be the head of a public Department in the sense of the Secretary of State. It is not desirable for the reason that it is not fair to the officer and ultimately to the public.
We have our Parliamentary system. It is not perfect, and it has great advantages and disadvantages, but it is essential to that system that the great permanent officials, whether military or naval or air force or civil service, should not themselves come into contact with public opinion or Parliamentary control and should only do so through a man who is himself an expert in dealing with Parliamentary control and public opinion. Let me say I notice with great regret a growing custom, which began, I think, at the time of the South African War, of bringing forward distinguished soldiers and sailors and of Ministers sheltering themselves behind their authority instead of taking, as Ministers ought to take, full responsibility before Parliament for everything that is done. That is dangerous in several ways. In the first place there are a great many public servants who can absolutely be trusted to work in their own ambits and in surroundings to which they are accustomed, but who, the moment they get under the pressure of public criticism, are
thrown off their balance. Sometimes their nerves are broken up by criticism, and in one way or another they are unfit for doing what is the essential business of a Minister responsible to Parliament. If they make a mistake, and everybody makes a mistake, they are not fit to face the subsequent criticism and attack which may be made upon them, because they cannot stand it as they find it is too much for them. That practice has been observed within the last 20 years in many cases. I do not think there has been a single instance of a great public official being brought out of his proper position and made virtually the person responsible to Parliament without more or less serious mischief. If you go on having a Secretary of State holding two offices it is almost inevitable that in the ease of the Air Force, the Secretary of State will become a mere pawn. The Scretary of State will come down and will make speeches and will say, "As Minister for Air, I take the fullest responsibility for this, that and the other." That is all quite unreal. It has been well said responsibility' is not an umbrella. You cannot take it if it does not belong to you. If the real responsibility is known to belong to the permanent head of the Department, you will' not stop Members of Parliament and newspapers criticising and attacking, sometimes very unfairly, that permanent Secretary.
6.0 P.M.
It is the business of a Secretary of State to be the real head of his Department, and to take the burden of responsibility and to make the defence and to screen with a veil of impenetrable thickness the actions of his professional advisers, and their degree of responsibility. I hope that all Ministers will make it a rule never to shield themselves behind the authority of their professional advisers, but that they will stand on the defence they are able to make in Parliament. Otherwise you will get professional men put in a false position, to the mischief both of their personal position and that of the public, especially if the people get to think that those professional men are controlling directly the machine of Government, and if the newspapers abuse eminent permanent officials. That is a most dangerous step, which can only be prevented if the Parliamentary Chief screens the permanent official absolutely,
not merely by a generous and chivalrous defence, but by an inpenetrable veil of secrecy. There is another aspect of the matter. I do not care how able the permanent official is or how much he is master of his work, it is not desirable that he should be freed from the criticism of the fresh mind of his Parliamentary Chief. Our Parliamentary system has advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages is that you have a man who knows little or nothing of the subject matter, but who is an expert in human nature, put in at the top of the Department, ready to criticise and judge conflicting opinions, it may be, of his professional advisers. He is not able to judge from his knowledge, but he is able conspicuously so and better than any man in the Department, through his knowledge of human nature, to judge from the way in which the various professional advisors make good their case. He is indispensable from that point of view to the smooth working of our system, and he brings a moderating influence which is very necessary for experts. An expert has not only great knowledge, he almost always has great prejudices, and unless you have the Parliamentary Chief at the top, you have nothing to counteract those prejudices and nothing to make the machine work smoothly, without jostling against the excrescences of public opinion. Moreover, he lubricates the working of the Department beneath him. He is, as I say, an expert in human nature—if that is the only thing he has learned by his Parliamentary training he sees at a glance that So-and-so is a little touchy, that somebody else is a little egotistical, and the little defects of his professional coadjutors are apparent to him very rapidly indeed. He has seen them in his constituency beforehand, and these things he is able, therefore, to smooth over in a hundred ways. Moreover, of course, coming from another, profession, he has to encounter none of the jealousies or personal disputes or any of the other grit which so often gets into the machine when you are working one professional man with the other. On all these grounds. I am quite sure no Department can work properly unless it has an active, efficient Secretary of State or other Parliamentary head at the top. How is that possible if you unite two great Departments like the Air Ministry and the War Ministry? You
will inevitably let the Air Ministry run by itself, or else you will inevitably let the War Ministry run by itself, and in either case it will be mischievous. There is in addition an objection, which has already been pointed out, that it is of vital importance that the Air Force should be independent and should at the same time work easily and smoothly both with the Navy and the Army. If the Navy thinks the Air Force is entirely in the hands of the Army and is under War Office influence, it certainly will not give that confidence to the Air Force that it is indispensable it should give, and the jealousy between the two senior services will constantly operate against the efficiency of the Air Force.
What would be my solution? I want a single Minister, but I do not want my right hon. Friend to resign the Air Force. The office I want him to resign is the War Office. He is a disciple of the air, he is almost one of its martyts. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment compared him with Napoleon, but I think he ought rather to be compared with Icarus, for since his days there has never been an aviator quite like him. It was proposed, it is stated, in the Air Council that as a test of courage no one should receive a commission in the Air Force who had not given a lesson to the Secretary of State, but the proposal was rejected as the test was felt to be too severe and would lead to a serious shortage of officers. The right hon. Gentleman is, therefore, a man very well fitted to enter sympathetically into all the defects of the Air Force. On the other hand, I think he is almost a public danger in the War Office. In the time of peace we do not want a Minister of so much energy and devotion to his Department in the great combatant department of State. We want to have an elderly gentleman of conservative instincts, and my right hon. Friend might very well be at one of the Departments which watch over economy, or he might be in the Air Service, which has many tasks in time of peace on which he can expend his energies without hankering after another great European struggle, as we are sometimes afraid he floes. So on every ground I would rather see my right hon. Friend concentrate on the air and make that the sphere of his activities, and in that way we should not only have the advantage of a most skilful and efficient administrator in the air, but we should avoid setting this dangerous precedent,
which, if not in his case, certainly in the case of his successors, must be fraught with mischief either to the War Office or to the Air Ministry.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): No one could complain of the tone and temper of the remarks which have just been addressed to the House by my Noble Friend. He always speaks with particular insight on every occasion when he is called upon to deal with the affairs of the air and of the Air Force, in which he takes so great an interest, of which he has so extensive an experience, and for which he has a most profound and living sympathy. I was the last to complain of the mode in which he had passed his criticism or to object to the good-humoured chaff which at one moment depicted me as a danger to the lives of pilots and the next as a peril to the peace of Europe. I felt that my Noble Friend was giving effect to a line of criticism which is embodied in the Amendment now before the House, and which also I know arises from very careful and very instructive reflection on his part. I am going, in the short time that I will trespass on the attention of the House, to address myself to that main point, the union of the two Offices of State, of the Air and of War, in the hands of a single Minister, because that is substantially the only piece of serious criticism which I have heard to-day. Let me first of all deal with what I may call the merits, as apart, that is to say, from the principle involved. What is the complaint which is made on the merits? Is it that the independence and integrity of the Air Force have suffered during the last twelve months by this arrangement? Is it that the separate existence, of the Air Force has been menaced while I have been responsible for the two offices? Why, Sir, the exact contrary is the truth.
Show me—I say it to the Noble Lord and to my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Brigadier-General Seely)—show me a single step which could have been taken to assert the independence and integrity of the Royal Air Force during the last twelve months which has not in fact been taken, and taken on my responsibility. That is a fair question, and it is a very sweeping question. I say, show me any step which could have been taken, which reasonable men would have taken, which has not in fact been taken. My right hon. and gallant Friend said that
there was a great difficulty in getting decisions, owing to my being so pressed with other work. Let me tell the House some of the decisions which have been reached during the present year—not decisions, mind you, which require merely the initial or the approving minute of the Minister at the head of the Department, but decisions which have to be wrested from other Departments of the State and for which Cabinet sanction and Treasury sanction have to be obtained, as the result of prolonged negotiations. We have obtained the transference of the whole construction and maintenance of airships from the Admiralty to the Air Ministry, thus completing the whole navigation of the air in the hands of the Air Ministry.
The great Departments of design and production and supply which I used to have under me at the Ministry of Munitions in the "War, and which carried with them all the experimental stations, the Isle of Grain, Marplesham, and others, all these great technical Departments, which were a most important portion of the work of the Ministry of Munitions in time of War, but which were always considered to be a vital part of the Air Ministry and always earnestly and ardently desired by the Air Ministry, have, since we lost the advantage of the assistance of my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite, been retained and obtained for the Air Ministry and are now an integral part of its organisation. The Meteorological Office, and the whole service of meteorology, has been taken over in the Air Service, and the Air Ministry is responsible to all Departments for all that is needful there. Civil aviation during the year has been, as I said before, rescued from the clutches, on the one hand, of the Board of Trade, and on the other hand, of the Ministry of Transport, and belongs to the Air Ministry. The Admiralty, we are told, are very discontented with the arrangement, but, as a matter of fact, they have treated the Air Ministry with the utmost consideration and goodwill during the whole of the present year. The Admiralty have intimated to us that they are desirous of assisting the Air Ministry to organise their future activities on a firm and durable basis, and they wish to emphasise that they have not the desire to establish a separate Naval Air Service.
The War Office—the General Staff and the Army Council—have completely accepted the principle and policy of a separate, independent Air Force and Air Service. Separate uniforms have been introduced and perpetuated to mark the Air Service.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Hear, hear!

Mr. CHURCHILL: This is not a matter to sneer at. Some officers are proud of their uniform. A separate scale of ranks and titles has been introduced marking off the Air officers of every rank from their comrades in the other two Services. These are only to illustrate my point, but I defy any Member of the House to show any important step necessary to advance the integrity and independence of the Royal Air Force which could have been taken in the course of the present year which has not, in fact, been taken. So much for that. There is the general complaint, which may always be made, that the Department is not being well managed, that it is being conducted on wrong lines, that progress is not being made in building up the new Force, but we really have not had much evidence of that in the speeches which we have listened to to-day. Of course, the Air Force in its present condition, recovering as it is from the great War, absolutely dispersed and having to be recreated under circumstances of great difficulty—a Force which has been subected to an enormous contraction and retrenchment in the interests of economy, and which is cumbered with the debris all over the country, in 150 or 160 stations which we do not require, and the surplus plant and matériel of the Great War, which has been stripped of its skilled mechanics hurrying off to the attractive wages and employment of civil life—of course, a Force of that kind, in the first year of its new existence, is bound to present many points of weakness against which the shafts of criticism may be fired, but I say, broadly speaking and generously speaking, no one could deny a tribute of admiration to the work which has been achieved in clearing away the litter of the past and in building up this new structure which is now in a fair way to present itself effectively to the public.
My right hon. Friend complained, among other things, that we had not foreseen the need of acting with the Air Force sufficiently to save the Armenians,
and that we could have saved many thousands of Armenian lives if we had taken steps to act with the Air Force. I am a great advocate of the use of the Air Force in many parts of the world, but a less promising theatre of action for its activities could hardly have been selected. The great difficulty of the Armenian problem is the fact that the Turkish and Armenian populations are so largely intermingled, and it is the massacres which arise from their close juxtaposition and intermingling that are the cause of our difficulties. Does anyone suppose it would help us in a case of that kind if our seaplanes could journey 500 miles from the Bosphorus to Armenia, or 200 miles to Marash, in Silesia, which is not, by the way, in our control at all, and then drop bombs on the towns and villages and the countryside in which Armenians and Turks are dwelling together. How that would benefit the Armenians or save thousands of lives, the experts I have consulted—not wishing to put my own opinion forward—are utterly at a loss to conceive. Really, in focussing his attack, for which, after all, he has a large field, I am surprised my right hon. Friend, with his great expert knowledge of the subject, has not embarked upon a more hopeful proposition. Is it that the Air Force is languishing because it is not being pushed sufficiently from the point of view of money? Of course, you could do a great deal more for the Air Force if you had more money. £15,000,000 is not a great deal of money at the present purchasing power of the pound. It amounts to very little more than £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 of money on the pre-War basis, and it is quite impossible on a sum like that to provide the Air Squadrons which are needed in the very disturbed areas, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, India, to provide those squadrons with their plant and trained mechanics, and, at the same time, keep alive this whole great industry of civil aviation. Of course, civil aviation and the great aeroplane firms are suffering, but that was inevitable in an industry created during the War and the exigencies of the War Here was an industry kept alive in the War on. which was spent upwards of £1,000,000 a day, and now we have £15,000,000 for the whole year. It is an impossible proposition.
I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend speak so sensibly, if I may say so
without presumption, on the subject of civil aviation. Civil aviation must fly by itself; the Government cannot possibly hold it up in the air. The first thing the Government have got to do is to get out of the way, and the next thing is to smooth the way. But when both these steps have been taken—and I will take occasion to lay before the House very shortly a Paper by the Controller-General of Civil Aviation which will show in detail the very numerous steps which are being taken to facilitate civil aviation and to smooth the path of civil aviation—when those steps have been taken, I say, it must fly on its own power, and any attempt to support it artificially by floods of State money will not ever produce a really sound commercial aviation service which the public will use, and will impose a burden of an almost indefinite amount upon the Exchequer. I say that on the merits. Where is the attack justified in regard to the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Royal Air Force? Where is there any real justification for the complaint that the Force is not being adequately and satisfactorily managed? I say, where is the justice of the complaint that we are not spending more money? With that I leave the merits as to whether in fact a good result has been achieved.
Now I want to come to the much more difficult proposition of whether the present arrangement of one Minister holding these two offices is, in fact, at the present time a good and convenient arrangement or not. I am addressing myself to what is admitted to be the most difficult part of the argument, and I will try to meet as fairly as I can the arguments which have been advanced against my point of view. Let me say at the outset that I wish to discuss this impersonally. I have no personal interest one way or the other in the matter. It really makes no difference to my internal peace of mind or daily satisfaction that I should receive each morning another great box of bulky papers, nor does it in any way affect my influence or position in the Cabinet or the Government to have another office of this kind placed in my hands. I have no personal interest in the matter at all. I told the Prime Minister at the time my right hon. Friend chose to take himself off—much to my regret—that I was perfectly ready to agree if he thought fit, and it would be convenient, that the offices should be
divided. But, although on personal grounds I beg the House to believe I have no strong opinion one way or the other, I have a very strong opinion on public grounds. I have a strong public interest which leads me not only to defend the present arrangement, but to advise the House not to disturb it at the present time. The public interest is the smooth working of the two services, and the building up of an independent Air Service working harmoniously with the Army and the Navy. If the control of the two services is kept under one Minister at the present time and in the near future, that can, I believe, be done, and it is being done at the present time, and, in my judgment, it is the only way it can or will be done. I can, in fact, at the present time make the policy of the two departments march together. I can settle simply and easily and without friction a whole series of inter-departmental questions which otherwise would have to be fought out in the Cabinet, or delayed indefinitely during the ever-growing congestion of public business for want of Cabinet time. On this ground, I should greatly regret a retrogression in co-ordination, as would be involved at the present moment by a separation of the Air Secretaryship of State from that of the Army; but not on any personal ground.
Let me illustrate what I have said about the smooth working which is promoted at the present time. I will give the House three instances. A long and complicated discussion had been proceeding throughout the whole of last year between the Air Ministry and the War Office on the subject of the relation in tactical and administrative matters between the military commanders-in-chiefs in every theatre, and the officers commanding the Air Force detachments in those theatres. The principles to be reconciled were broadly as follows:—First, the supreme responsibility of the local commander-in-chief—that is vital. Secondly, the tactical integrity of any war plan or war operation—that is vital. Thirdly, equal and separate status of the Air Force, not being a subordinate department or branch of the military forces, but equal and separate. That, again, is a point of principle, to us vital. Fourthly, the distinction between the Independent Air Force, which may be used strategically under the authority of the Air Ministry,
on the one hand, and the Air Force, including reconnaissances, bombing and fighting squadrons which are placed under the control of the local commander-in-chief; and, again, the further distinction between this latter force and air forces which are much more closely interwoven with the Army, such as the squadron spotting for the artillery or the flight attacks, which are intimately interwoven with the daily work and life of the military arm to which they are ancillary. I am not going to burden the House with this complicated business, but I am stating the problem. Needless to say, it is a problem that gave rise to the most healthy and at the same time most acute difficulties. Anyone who knows about these things will perceive that there are 20 points of principle which might arise on which acute differences of honest opinion could take place. If these differences had been concentrated in the organisation of two rival departments, and each point of view had been championed by the Minister at the head of each department, I doubt very much whether any solution would have been reached. If a solution had been reached, it seems to me very probable that the views of the far more powerful staff would have prevailed completely over the new, smaller and immature organisation of the Air Service. However, the fact is that both Departments owe allegiance to one Minister at the present time, and that has been sufficient in itself to prevent this undue particularism leading to a deadlock on the one hand or the other.
It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Raper) that whenever a question arises between the Air Ministry and the War Ministry, I naturally side with the larger and more powerful Department. In practice the exact contrary has happened. So far from using my dual position to over-ride the air point of view, and to favour the larger Department, of which I am the head, I was able to persuade the General Staff, and an arrangement has been come to which is entirely satisfactory to the Air Staff, and which has been loyally-accepted by the General Staff. This arrangement is working quite smoothly everywhere that it has been put into application up to the present time. But the advantage does not stop there, and did not stop there in this case. The fact that this arrangement had been reached between the War Office and the Air
Ministry greatly facilitated a satisfactory settlement being discussed and arrived at with the Admiralty, and the principles which were arrived at between the Air Staff and the General Staff have been found of the greatest value in dealing with the far more complicated and, in many respects, altogether diverse conditions which prevail in regard to aircraft in connection with the. Fleet.
I take another illustration. When I was speaking on the Army Estimates I offered the suggestion that the Air Force should try and see if they could exercise an effective control over peace and order in Mesopotamia. No greater opportunity could be offered to the Air Service than that a chance to have the whole of the Military responsibility placed in their hands for the internal security of Mesopotamia. What greater encouragement could you offer the Air officers than the possibility of such a command? What clearer proof could be given of the independent and equal status of the Air Force than to have, in an appropriate theatre of ground and river, a Force serving under their own command? Is not that one of the ways in which you will assert this equality of status between the two Forces where you have the Military Commander-in-Chief with the Local Air Officer under him, but independent? In Mesopotamia you have had a Royal Air Force Officer in command and the Military detachment serving under him. How-could this gateway of the possible expansion ever have been opened at this stage of the Royal Air Force if the Minister at the head of the War Office, who at this moment is responsible for order in Mesopotamia, had not had an equally keen interest in the Air Force and in securing economies irrespective of the Department in which economy was secured?
From my point of view it makes no difference in which of the two Departments the economy is secured. I consider the total. If I was saving £10,000,000 on the War Office Estimates in regard to Mesopotamia, by adding £5,000,000 to the Air Force Estimates I should not look at it from the War Office point of view, but from the dual and general point of view, and it would be a source of undiluted satisfaction to me. It would be impossible if the Minister had not this
interest in both forces. It would be impossible if the relations between the two Departments were not rapidly becoming those of close sympathy and confidence. I am sure that but for this arrangement, which some of my hon. Friends of the Air Service have criticised, this particular project would not have been thought of. Whether it will be carried out will depend entirely upon the capability of the staff in devising plans, which really gives us an assurance that the country can be held with air-power as the main and dominant factor. That they have got to prove to the satisfaction of the Cabinet. But the opportunity is there! That opportunity has been freely offered to the Air Force. Speaking with many years' experience of these fighting Departments, I am certain that it would never have been offered but for this dual arrangement which has found so little favour with some hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon.
Take the third example, Somaliland. It is the first Air campaign in that country. Does anyone suppose that that campaign could have been arranged so easily or so secretly if there had been differences of view and a division of responsibility between the general staff and the Air staff? If those differences had developed into a conflict it would have been quite impossible. A separate air plan put forward for the campaign might have conceivably led to military forces being drawn in. There would undoubtedly have been criticism from the outset by the general staff had it not been that there was this connection between the two Departments, but for the fact that we were gathered under one head, which enabled a satisfactory liaison to be maintained. It surprises me with such evidence publicly before their eyes of the growing independence and equality of the Royal Air Force that some hon. and right hon. Members of the House, who profess to be well informed, should continue to bewail the cramped and subservient position of the Air Force, and attribute that position to the system of unified control which at present exists. Here let me point out that it is not dual control. In a previous debate on this subject some hon. Member described the arrangement as dual control. It is not that. It is the reverse of dual control. It is unified control. Dual control is two persons attempting to control one thing. The reverse process
is one person attempting to control two things.
Perhaps the House will bear with me while I approach my conclusion by another argument, and quite a different one. I will try in this respect to meet the criticism of my Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil). It is said that there ought to be a separate Cabinet Minister at the head of the Air Service. That is also the contention of my right hon. Friend (Major-General Seely). It is asserted that it is derogatory to the status of the Air Force not to have a separate Minister, not to have a champion of their own in the Cabinet. Such a' suggestion, I do not believe, will be found practical at the present time. It will not be found either convenient or justifiable. That, I know, is the opinion of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the House. It is not a matter which rests with me to settle one way or the other. The Prime Minister wished me to state fully the arguments on this matter, I will do so in general terms.
First of all, there is the question of the size of the Cabinet I think everybody who thinks about these subjects would regard a Cabinet of twelve or thirteen as an ideal Cabinet. In practice such a number is not possible. It is not possible because the growing complications of government, the claims of usage and precedent, the demand of great interests in our national life, and of important parts of the United Kingdom, have compelled, step by step, enlargement, until we have reached the normal pre-War size of the Cabinet of something like twenty. Everyone, I think, would say that if such a number erred in any direction, it erred in the direction of being unwieldy. But the demand which is made by several speakers, if it is to be met at all, involves an addition to that number. I know it may be said that one more or less cannot make any particular difference. But it is not a question of one more or less. The Air Ministry is a new office. It is a comparatively small service. The £15,000,000 which I mentioned is the figure assigned to develop this service. It is only worth at present, on pre-War rates, between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. Compare it with the Post Office, for instance, or the Pensions Ministry, or the Food Ministry. These various Departments touch our national life at every point, and I say, if you decide this question on the merits
of the inclusion of a separate Minister in the Cabinet for the Air Service, you could not possibly decide without including three or four, or possibly five, of the other Ministries at the same time.
It may be said, why not have a separate Air Minister without a seat in the Cabinet? [An HON. MEMBER, "Hear, hear!"] Well, I am trying to meet that point, and I hope my hon. Friend will give me credit for it. Surely that really would place the Air Force at a disadvantage compared with the Army and the Navy! Here you have the two powerful Services and Departments, into each of which the Air Force is going to come, at the expense of both, and of whom it alone will expand. Permanently represented in the Cabinet and the new fighting service excluded! What chance would it have in competition with the other two services in these circumstances? The hon. Member opposite for North Kensington (Lieut.-Colonel Burgoyne), in the course of a very well-informed speech, spoke of Cinderella and her cloak, of a dark atmosphere, and he used a number of other very picturesque expressions as ornaments to his already eloquent speech. In this case the service would indeed be the Cinderella, and would be left outside while the two elder and presumably uglier sisters had gone into the ball.

Captain BENN: But Cinderella married the Prince!

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, by securing admission to the ball! My argument goes to show that but for the undue congestion at the entertainment it is highly possible that she would not have succeeded even in securing the exceptional admission which she did secure. The more you examine this question with patience and goodwill the more I venture to think the House will be drawn to the conclusion that the present arrangement, although in some ways anomalous and open to criticism, is nevertheless not only the best that is possible now, but the only one. I believe this is the only arrangement which would have preserved the independence of the Air Service during the present year. Everyone can sec what a formidable danger the Air Service has encountered during this year since the War stopped. There are many in both the services, the Army and the Navy, who thought that the Air Service should be divided into a naval wing, and a military
wing, and that Civil Aviation should be given to the Board of Trade. That is a perfectly clear point of view, very powerfully held both at the War Office and Admiralty, and, I dare say, at the Board of Trade as well. I can quite conceive such a view might have received support from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I do not mean personally, but from the Treasury—because it is perfectly clear that such an arrangement would show immediate economies in the central establishments of the Air Service. Our answer to-day, and I hope in the future, is the belief that the Air Service is going to grow, expand, and develop at the expense of—and to the advantage of the public—of both the other great services. But that is not their point of view. I was asked what is the arrangement in France. This is the arrangement which has been made in France: The Military Air Service is under the Military Section of the War Office, and the Naval under the Admiralty, while Civil Aviation has been erected into a Department of its own under a Secretary of State for Aviation.
These are the two alternatives. But everyone of those hon. Members who have criticised from the point of view of their desire to see an independent separate Air Service have criticised the present arrangement because they think it is not the best method to secure that end. All I know is that nothing but the exertions which have been ceaseless during the year have prevented the solution adopted in France being applied here. Had the two great services joined together they might have used their influence and power and the result of their authority might have been, in all probability, that the independent Air Service, which all in common are deeply devoted to and believe in, would not have had the chance of gaining a separate and independent existence. On even larger lines I believe the present arrangement must commend itself to the judgment of all. The Government of the country is bound to become more complex; new functions important to the life and welfare of the nation will force themselves on the State as time passes. New Ministries will have to be created to deal with them, and indeed, four or five have been created already in the revolution which the War caused in our affairs. I am not speaking of any intention on the part of the
Government to create any such Ministries. I am only speaking of a general tendency which in the course of years will be found to be irresistible. How is this tendency to be reconciled with effective working? Cabinet Government to-day, requires a Council of moderate, and even small, size, every Member of which feels that he bears joint responsibility for the whole policy of the State. It is no remedy for the ever-increasing congestion of business to create individual Ministries each with separate representation. That would only lead to a breakdown of Cabinet Government by, reason of the increase in the size of that instrument. The only way in which this problem will ultimately be coped with is by a grouping of Departments, not only in defence, but in several of the domestic spheres. I see no other way in which can be surmounted the difficulty of the modern development of events. The arrangement which we have made, although it is incomplete, is entirely in harmony with what I believe to be the inevitable development.
I have now only to deal with the argument put forward by two of the speakers that the Air Ministry is a wholetime job which requires the entire daily attention of a single Minister. Certainly the task of building up a new Air Service is one which requires the whole attention of a high authority, but in spite of the arguments which my Noble Friend put forward, I do not think it is a task which at this stage is best discharged primarily by the Minister at the head of the Department. He is there to control, to supervise, to suggest, to define, to co-ordinate, to guide and to take full and real Parliamentary responsibility. There is an Under-Secretary, who also has a large share of administrative and of Parliamentary business, to which he has addressed himself with great enthusiasm, and in the financial sphere I have derived the greatest possible assistance from the work which has been done by Lord Londonderry during the last fifteen months. But the man to whom the primary task of building up this new Service belongs is the Chief of the Air Staff, Major Trenchard. My Noble Friend is wrong in supposing that in a fighting department like the Admiralty or the War Office, it is the business of the head himself to initiate the whole flow of movement on professional matters. It is not. He has a higher function, but it is a secondary
function and not a primary function. I do not take the view that in a fighting department a political Minister should try to initiate the whole of the professional work himself, and I am sure he would fail if he tried to do so. He has to see to the carrying out of the general policy of the Government for which he assumes Parliamentary responsibility, but he must secure from his subordinate that initiative, that spontaneous creative effort in all branches without which no great business, no large undertaking can possibly be carried forward with success.
His task is one of very great difficulty. The Air Service is not like the Army or the Navy. These have their hundreds of years of tradition; they possess regiments and institutions which have grown venerable generation after generation. But the Air Service is a brand new force; it is an arm which has only got the glorious records it gained during the War; it was created by that trouble and fanned into the open on the fierce wind of war, and it was almost entirely dispersed at the close. Now we are laboriously reconstructing it with units which will really stand the test of long years, and we have to create squadrons and institutions to which fathers will be proud to send their sons either as officers, as mechanics or as men, assured that there will be for them honourable associations and a fine school, a school not only of airmen but of science: not only of science but of conduct, worthy to hold its place in spirit and in action with the best that the Army or the Navy have ever been able to produce. We want to build up a Service which men will leave with a first-rate training, both moral and practical, enabling them to take their place in all the varying conditions of civil life.
For this two things are indispensable—time and stability. One of the greatest evils which the Air Force has suffered from has been the repeated chopping and changing which has gone on in regard to the system of control and in respect of the personnel who control it. Up to a year ago hardly six months had passed—I almost said four months—without vital changes being made in the Staff, affecting the whole structure and principle of the Force, and creating a spirit of unrest and uncertainty in every rank. Now, at any
rate, the present Air Council and the present Chief of the Air Staff have had one year of wide freedom of action with secure assured authority. It will require at least three years to obtain the results to which we aspire, and which we have a right to look for. During the year which has passed since we formed the new Air Council, I have allowed no changes of any kind which could possibly be avoided. The same men are staying in the same seats exercising authority over the same sphere, and they are doing so with an increasing feeling on their part that it is worth their while to make plans and economies, not for the current year, but for the next year and the year after, thus getting the feeling of confidence that, at any rate, their job will last, and their subordinates in all ranks are increasingly feeling that they belong to a stable and solid institution, where men are not jockeying each other for personal advantage or advancement, and where they may do their duty in confidence day after day and month after month, in the rank and station in which they are serving. I urge most strongly on those who have the welfare of the Air Force at heart, that whatever Minister may, for the time being, be in charge, he must establish in this organisation those conditions of stability and discipline without which no fine results, no real or certain success can possibly be achieved.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposing to speak on the same subject?

Captain BENN: Yes, primarily, but—

Mr. SPEAKER: It will be possible to re-open the general subject after the Amendment has been disposed of.

Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNE: I have no intention of dividing the House, and I will therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 55.

Division No. 56.]
AYES.
[7.0 p.m.


Agg Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Atkey, A. R.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Baird, John Lawrence
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Purchase, H. G.


Baldwin, Stanley
Glyn, Major Ralph
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gould, James C.
Ramsden, G. T.


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Barker, Major Robert H.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Reid, D. D.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Greig, Colonel James William
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford).


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rodger, A. K.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rose, Frank H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bigland, Alfred
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Royden, Sir Thomas


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Blair, Major Reginald
Hartshorn, Vernon
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Seddon, J. A.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bruton, Sir James
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Simm, M. T.


Buchanan, Lieut-Colonel A. L. H.
Hood, Joseph
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Buckley, Lieut.-Cololnel A.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Burden, Colonel Rowland
Hudson, R. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Stevens, Marshall


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Campbell, J. D. G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sturrock, J. Leng


Campion, Lieut-Colonel W. R.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sugden, W. H.


Carr, W. Theodore
Jesson, C.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Casey, T. W.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Taylor, J.


Cautley, Henry S.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Kellaway, Frederick George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South).


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Kidd, James
Tryon, Major George Clement


Coats, Sir Stuart
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Turton, E. R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Vickers, Douglas


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Walton, J. (York,. W. R. Don Valley)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Waring, Major Walter


Cope, Major Wm.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lloyd, George Butler
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lloyd-Greame, Major p.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport).


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Lyon, Laurance
Whitla, Sir William


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Dawes, James Arthur
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wignall, James


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Macmaster, Donald
Wilkle, Alexander


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Duncannon, Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel. s
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mitchell, W. Lane
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Morrison, Hugh
Winterton, Major Earl


Falcon, Captain Michael
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Woolcock, William James U.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Fell, Sir Arthur
Neal, Arthur
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Foreman, Henry
Nield, Sir Herbert
Younger, Sir George


Forestier-Walker, L.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John



Forrest, Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


France, Gerald Ashburner
Parker, James
Ward.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Pearce, Sir William





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Finney, Samuel
Hogge, James Myles


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Galbraith, Samuel
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Bromfield, William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kiley, James D.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Cape, Thomas
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hayday, Arthur
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hayward, Major Evan
Morgan, Major D. Watts


Devlin, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross).


Donnelly, P.
Hirst, G. H.
Myers, Thomas




Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Wallace, J.


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Sexton, James
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


O'Grady, Captain James
Spencer, George A.
Williams, Col. p. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Spoor, B. C.



Raper, A. Baldwin
Swan, J. E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Redmond, Captain William Archer
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Lieut.-Colonel Malone and Major


Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Tillett, Benjamin
McKenzie Wood.


Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Tootill, Robert

Original Question again proposed.

7.0 P.M.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I only desire to make a few remarks on the general subject. There has been a long Debate to-day. A brilliant statement was made by the Under-Secretary of State for Air, establishing no doubt a very good case; as good a case as ever I have heard made for expenditure on aviation. I am one of those who wish to see more got for the money we spend and some economy made in the general expenditure of the Government. As a rule this House has not gained power by cavilling at a particular Estimate; but what has happened to them last year, and for the last 20 years on the Estimates, is that various grievances have been brought forward, reductions have been moved, and the grievances put right. But we have come, to-day to the position that this House reached years ago, when it was absolutely necessary to stop the extravagance of the Government and the country. I am not complaining, and I do not think anybody can complain of the Prime Minister not being heart and soul in favour of economy. The answers he gave to-day at question time show how determined he was to keep public expenditure down, but the difficulty is how to do it. Ministers come to this House and say: "We cannot have economy because this House is always voting for extravagance." It is quite true, and many of us are to blame. But there is another form of economy There is the method of running each Department on the smallest possible amount, and of getting the greatest possible amount of work out of them in return. Of late years there has been a system of appointing Committees of the House to inquire into expenditure. A Committee of the House is not much use at finding where the expenditure goes. They may be very anxious to make economies, and they may give some very good advice; but the only man who can really reduce expenditure in any business is the man who is thoroughly conversant with the work of that business. The head Government officials are the only people
who can possibly make real economies in the government of those Departments. The permanent officials know every detail; they know exactly where there is a man too many, a room too many, an unnecessary publication, or an unnecessary piece of printing. They have absolute knowledge of where reductions can be made. It is true there is very little encouragement to them to make reductions. It means, sometimes, turning a friend out of a good job. It is the duty of this House to see that they are employed in reducing expenditure. The right hon. Genteman, in his speech just now, mentioned how, in the Air Ministry, men were sitting there month after month and were looking forward to being two or three years permanently in that position, and were making economies for next year, and even for three years hence. Exactly. They are the people who can do it. How are we to persuade them to do it still than they are doing it to-day. There is only one way, and that is for the House, not to move reductions to this or that item, but to say to the Ministry and the Department: "You have got to make economies. We are going to reduce what you ask for by so many millions. We do not care where You make them, but make them with as little cost of efficiency as possible." Let the House say: "We will reduce the whole sum and leave it to those who know where reductions can be made to decide how those reductions are made." We should not try, with our inexpert knowledge of each Department, to pick holes in this or that part of their working. That is the possibility of real economy, upon which this House should insist—that each and all the Departments should reduce their expenditure. I do not say that this Department is extravagant. I do not say any Department is extravagant, but they probably are; and if this House will only determine that they should be run at a less cost, it can do it by knocking off the total expenditure on the whole Department. I absolutely believe in the Ministers who are now in office. I believe the Prime Minister is in earnest, and I
believe that this House can assist them in reducing the expenditure of the country, if they do it, not in small bits, but move their reductions on the workings of each Department.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a few remarks to the House on the subject of this Vote. This is the first of the Armament Votes, the first detailed Estimate for the fighting services. We are asked to approve of an expenditure of £21,000,000, which represents, if I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, a normal expenditure of about £16,000,000 or a little less. At the same time, we are asked to Vote and approve of 150,000 men. The present needs to-day, according to the Supreme Council, if the world generally, and Europe in particular, is going to get on its legs, are demobilisation, economy, and work. The great need to-day, according to the Supreme Council, is demobilisation. It is no good our scolding the Poles, the Czccho-Slovaks, the Jugo Slavs, and the other small nations, old and new, that have been created or recreated in Europe. It is no good our scolding them about excessive expenditure on armaments, if we do not lead the way ourselves. In the present state of the world I think we want a great deal more justification than we have had for the expenditure of this amount of money and the keeping of 150,000 men.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Where does the hon. and gallant Gentleman get 150,000 from?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg pardon; I was looking at the previous year. I sec it is 30,000.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make a similar modification in his argument.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My crucial argument was addressed to the question of money, and I think I was correct in saying that we are asked to vote approximately £21,000,000, corresponding to a normal amount of £16,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman has quite properly drawn my attention to the fact that I misread the number of men, but I do not think he was up till the hour I was this morning voting against Government expenditure. If he
had been he would, perhaps, have sympathised with my not being able to study these Estimates with the care I should have wished to give to them. We have been voting money on different Estimates at such a rate that it has been extremely difficult for hon. Members, with the best will in the world, to pay very great attention to the details of each particular one.
What will be the effect upon Europe of the news that we have voted this money on the Air Service eighteen months after the Armistice? I admit that a case can be made out for the erection and maintenance of schools and training establishments at the. birth of a new service, but that, will not be the argument used, for example, in the Polish Parliament, if there are any economists there and they bring forward a plea for reduced expenditure. They will remark that even pious England is spending £21,000,000 this year, in a time of almost peace, on aircraft alone. If we could show a corresponding reduction in naval and military expenditure, there might be something to be said for it, but I do not think the Navy or the Army can economise a million of money because of aircraft, and I am afraid that, when we come to examine Naval Estimates, we shall find that extra money is being asked for on Naval Services to enable them to work in co-operation with aircraft. The right hon. Gentleman, in his remarkably interesting and able speech, rather made fun of his late colleague at the Air Ministry, who suggested that aircraft might have been used for keeping peace internally in Turkey. Hesaid that he had consulted his expert advisers, and that they agreed with him that it was impossible for aircraft to have any effect in that direction. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that, during the last 18 months, the effect of long-distance aeroplane flights over those areas where massacres have been taking place or were threatened, would have had no effect. Would the stationing of seaplanes on Lake Van have had no effect whatever? Would there have been no moral support to the unfortunate Armenians or no effect upon the rebel Turkish influence in those districts? I was speaking to a very distinguished Armenian the other day, and sympathising with his people in their sufferings as he described them to me, and he complained bitterly of the lack of support which the Republic of Erivan had had
from the Allies. He said that if one-tenth of the expenditure that has been lavished and wasted in Russia had been used to support the Armenians, we should have had none of those massacres and outrages. I make no apology for drawing attention to that, because the speech of the hon and gallant Member (Major Tryon) did touch upon the work of British aircraft in Russia. We are told that the Armenians and Turks are so mixed up in Asia Minor that it is impossible for aircraft to operate. I do not propose that undefended villages should be attacked, in fact I deplore very much the use that has already been made of aircraft to bomb villages in Egypt; it is a new use of a military arm which I think needs careful checking, and I am not sure whether in the long run it is not going to do more harm than good. There arc, however, military camps under the command of Mustapha Kemil which could have been raided by our new long-range aircraft from the Black Sea. Some of the squadrons that have been sent to assist the White Forces under General Denikin in South Russia might have been employed, at any rate in demonstrating along the shores of the Black Sea. I should like to know if any aircraft carriers have visited Trebizond and Batoum, and their machines sent out over the plains of Anatolia. If not, I think we are too late in demonstrating with Dreadnoughts in the Bosphorus. A little display in Asia Minor of the air power which we hear so much about when money is asked for, might have saved the lives of a few innocent Armenians; but that is a matter of the past, and we have to deal with the expenditure that we are asked for at the present moment.
The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech reeked of militarism. He spoke of the pride and the traditions of the new squadrons or units that are going to be built up, and he spoke of the great military vested interest that was going to be created in aircraft. We do not want a vested military interest in a British Air Service. If the right hon. Gentleman had spoken a little of the possibility of an International Air Force, working under the control and to the orders of the League of Nations, I should have been personally much better pleased. That is the tradition that we want to build up
now. There has been too much of the cry of this Guards Regiment and that Death's Head Regiment, of a new and growing pride in some aerial squadron. Esprit de Corps in war time is extraordinarily valuable, and in peace time it does help to weld together and build up the discipline and spirit of a fighting force; but it has also been one of the most potent causes of the evil of war. It unfortunately appeals to certain instincts in the human race which I had hoped the new era would see turned into a better direction. This is a matter of high policy with which we have few opportunities of dealing, but I should have liked to see the nations of Europe setting about a drastic disarmament—reduction is insufficient—and spending their money, scanty and hard earned as it will be in the lean years that are ahead of us, in building up an international police force, responsible to a higher authority than the nationalist spirit which, in its exaggerated and perverted form, has been one of the most fruitful causes of war and suffering in the world. I agree with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir C. Warner) that we ought to attack these estimates in the mass, we ought to move great reductions, and to protest by dividing against them. This is the first of the Armament Estimates. No doubt it has given much pleasure to the Army, and it may have comforted a few of the many hundreds of officials who apparently require £181,000 a year for the Air Ministry at home. But I do not think it will afford much comfort to the people of this country, or much example to the bankrupt, starving, chaotic peoples of Central Europe, who need a lead, and are not getting it from the country which has in the past been held in such esteem by the world.

Question put, and agreed to. Considered in Committee.

[MR. WHITLEY in the chair.]

NUMBER OK AIR FORCE.

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 29,730, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1921.

Captain W. BENN: I beg to move to reduce the number to be maintained by 100.
I do not want to go over the ground that was debated earlier in the afternoon in reference to the joint offices held in one by the right hon. Gentleman, although I must say that so much of his defence as I was privileged to hear—unfortunately I did not hear it all—seemed to me to be a very interesting and brilliant defence, but not convincing in the very least. There were four reasons alleged by the right hon. Gentleman why he should continue to be Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air. He finished by indicating that no change was desirable, generally speaking. He spoke about the office routine going on, people sowing with the knowledge that they would reap, not this year, but the year after. All that is incontestable, but it has nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. It is conceivable that a change might come in the Government of the country. Would not these gallant officers in the Department go on sowing? All may sow, but the increase may be reaped by someone else sitting on the Front Bench. The argument that to get continuity of work in the Department you must have no change in the Head of the Department is really an argument which, if true, would cut at the whole system of political management. His second reason was that the Air Service was engaged in a fight for life, but surely it would have been better that it should have had an independent champion with the rank of a Secretary of State which the Act of Parliament gives. His third was that Ministries should be grouped so that, in order to get a smaller inner council of the nation, there should be Ministers who in themselves represent the various cognate aspects of administration. It seems to me an admirable suggestion, but it is not really germane, because we contend that a joint War and Air Ministry is not a step in the direction of a Ministry of Defence, because it has excited in the. Admiralty the very jealousy which would make, not for but against the possibility of that development. The right hon. Gentleman explained how the Ministry worked and how the duty of the Minister was confined to going to the Department and co-ordinating and seeing that things were done, but he suggested that their duties were so light that there was nothing to occupy the whole time of the Secretary of State. If that is true, what about the duties of other Ministers
who are Secretaries of State, because if the argument is true of the Air Ministry it is true of every other Ministry? The only answer the right hon. Gentleman could make was that he himself is a man of exuberant energy and is able to do two men's work. I do not demur altogether to that contention, but when he goes on to say that a state of affairs which may be permissible with him at the head is to be made permanent with other less gifted Ministers in charge, he is shaking the confidence of those who would be glad to agree with him if they could.
Anyone who is interested in the air will be very pleased to see in the Memorandum the right hon. Gentleman has issued the statement of faith with which it is prefaced that manufacture, supply, research and meteorology, all are grouped under the one Ministry. That must give very great satisfaction to those who have interested themselves throughout the course of the War in this endeavour to get one Ministry for one element, and although I voted for the Amendment and believed it was right, at any rate we had lip service and perhaps more paid to the principle that the air is an element just as water and the earth are elements, and is entitled to a Ministry devoted entirely to its own interests. I should like to ask a question in passing as regards research. I see the National physical laboratory is going on with its investigations. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether any effort is made to co-relate the work of the Research Department at Farnborough with the work of the National Physical Laboratory, I think it should be. Further, as regards meteorology, does that mean that the service of meteorology for all purposes is now in charge of the Air Ministry, or are other meteorological departments at the Admiralty and elsewhere to be kept going? We believe that the science of meteorology can be most perfectly explored by the Air Service. Obviously a thing that goes in the air is a thing which will tell you what the air is like.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It cannot go up to where the meteors come from.

Captain BENN: That is true, but I should like to know that the Admiralty is not secretly hoarding up a Meteorological Department of its own, but has handed over its organisation to what
should be the unified organisation of the national service. Neither am I going to quarrel with the amount of the Estimate, although I share all the ideals which my hon. and gallant Friend so often expresses. I am not going to quarrel with the amount of the Estimate, because the Air Service differs entirely from the Army or the Navy in this, that it has a definite peace mission to which it can be adapted and which it can fulfil. The second reason why I do not question the figures is because so far as expenditure on national defence is necessary, I should wish to see the burden taken from an obsolescent Department, such as the Army or Navy, and I should like to see the revision coming more in the direction of giving more work for the Air Service to do and a consequent and much greater diminution in the Estimates for the Army and the Navy. That is the policy, but we do not sec any fruits. We consider that the Army Estimates are grossly swollen and that the Navy Estimates contain large charges for things which ought to fall upon the Air Service Vote. It is a redistribution of this kind which constitutes the sole justification, if there is one, for the right hon. Gentleman holding both offices. It is a much better argument than anything he has put forward to-day, that in his position common to both offices he shall insist at the War Office on charges being transferred to the Air Ministry and the work being done by air machines.
Of course in Somaliland there was a very brilliant operation carried out by the Air Service which gave definite proof of what the Air Service can do in warfare of that kind. I should like to ask whether something more could not be done in Egypt, where there are more than 30,000 troops. Is it not possible that order could be kept, especially in some of the distant districts, by means of low-flying aeroplanes instead of immense territorial occupations by troops, because the moral effect, especially against an enemy which is unarmed, with any anti-aerial defence, of a low-flying aeroplane is tremendous when it is known that it has come or a hostile mission. The right hon. Gentleman told us that more work was to be done by the Air Force in Mesopotamia, but is he able to inform us of what is being done? It would seem that very large tracts might be entirely controlled
by a Police Air Service in place of troops living in places where their activities are entirely limited by the country. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that in that case the Supreme Command would be given to an air officer, and troops on the ground would come under the command of the Superior Service. The same of course applies to India, I suppose, and to Asia Minor. I understand the right hon. Gentleman poured ridicule on the suggestion that Asia Minor might be partially controlled from the air. If he had a fleet of seaplane carriers under his own control working in the Black Sea and on the Mediterranean littoral, a very great deal of Asia Minor might be brought under control by air. If it is necessary to give any force to the League of Nations to carry out their peace work, it might very suitably be an international air force enlisted for the purpose. Look what the. effect of that would be on the Turkish situation. The Government's position, I understand, is that by keeping the Turk at Constantinople he is kept at the mouth of the guns and is bound to behave. Therefore he must not go to Brousa. But if he were at Brousa, is he not absolutely accessible by seaplane, to say nothing of aeroplane bombers, from the Sea of Marmora? There was a massacre of Armenians at Adana. I have been over Adana and bombed the railway station. It is absolutely accessible from the sea We did it in machines which had never altered one tittle of their design from 1910, when they were designed, to the time they were supplied by the Admiralty to the Air Service at Port Said.

Commander BELLAIRS: That is a relief from Army Votes.

Captain BENN: Not at all. It is naval guns which the Turks are to be at the mouth of. Large charges which fall on the Army or the Navy might very well fall on the Air Service, and wherever the Turk went in Asia Minor it would be possible to keep him under control from the sea, not necessarily by seaplanes, but by air machines which might be flown off the decks of seaplane carriers, or they might even be seaplanes. [Interruption.] I cannot enter into the rival merits of Armenians and Turks, but it usually seems to be the Armenians who get killed, and if you terrify their murderers it might have a good effect. Air requires someone in the powerful position of a Cabinet
Minister to stand up for the Air point of view, and the people in the Air Service very much mistrust the influence of people brought up in the old Army or Navy school, because the tendency always is to look at the thing from the good old days when they were in a regiment or in a ship and not to realise that the Air has its own traditions and peculiarities and its own psychology. What should be the general policy of the Air Ministry in times of peace? There is a Vote here, or roughly £15,000,000 or £16,000,000, which is divided into £12,500,000 to be expended on war service and £2,500,000 on research and civil aviation. I suggest, first, that the proportion is too heavily weighted in favour of the war side, and secondly, if the proportion is not altered, that there is proper co-ordination between the office which deals with civil aviation and the authority which deals with the maintenance of the squadrons and the aerodromes to all the services.
I should like to speak of the matter purely, though that is not the point of view I prefer, from the standpoint of the preparations necessary for some future war There is no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to persist in his policy we shall have a future war. Looking at the matter purely from the point of view of the officer who is in charge of the supply of material for a future war, let us take the material first. It is very striking in the recent War the material that was in existence when the War broke out very quickly became obsolete. One only has to look at the records of performances to realise what enormous strides were made between the years 1913–1916, as compared with the period from 1903 to the year when war broke out. The maximum distance flown in the three years 1912, 1913, 1914, ranged to about 600 or 700 miles, and instead of going forwards it was going backwards. It amounted to 678 miles in 1912 and had gone down to 615 miles in 1914; but in 1916, after we had had the advantage of two years of unlimited expenditure, both in money, in life, and in risk, we had the remarkable flights from Toulouse to Casablanca, over 1,000 miles, and the long flight into Russia of 1,200 miles, so that in two years more had been done than in the whole of the previous eleven years during which aviation had been growing into a practical science.
Whatever material the right hon. Gentleman many accumulate in preparation for the next war it is perfectly certain that very shortly after hostilities break out, or very shortly after the war has been in operation, the material will be out of date. What he ought to do is not to accumulate masses of aeroplanes of an obsolescent standard but try to encourage in every way the development of new ideas. One hon. Member said he thought that the development of civil aviation would not necessarily improve the war machines, because the type was so different. I think it was the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) who said that the function of the civil machines was that of safety and weight-carrying and that speed was not essential. What is required in an effective commercial machine is engine power with small weight, therefore good reserve power. A flying machine for war purposes has the safety that is secured in the commercial machines by reserve of power, and the reserve of power is employed in the war machine for fighting purposes, for climbing, etc.

Lord HUGH CECIL: You do not want the same manœuvring power.

Captain BENN: It is quite true that some types of scouts depend entirely on their power of manœuvre, but the Noble Lord knows quite well that bombers of the most successful type are. not manœuvred at all. We may, of course, get a new type of aerial battleship which will be no more manoeuvrable, compared with the scout, than the Dreadnought compared with quick torpedo-boat. What the Air Minister ought to do, even from the war point of view, is to assiduously encourage and cultivate ideas. It is not by an accumulation of war material, or by concentrating on the war aspect, that you will get the development of ideas which is necessary to true progress. What, for instance, should be the policy of someone who is required to produce the personnel for any future encounter? It is quite true that in training men you cannot make all tacticians You can train wireless operators and enginemen, and develop the science of aerial gunnery, bomb dropping, etc., but as regards the pilots, long before there is any danger of a future war the pilots that are being trained to-day will be too old or too stale to fly, or very likely will not be able to fly the type of machine that will emerge—
if such a misadventure as a great war came along—as the type by which the war would be won. That is the reason why I say that it is idle to think of having a pool of pilots: keeping together all the pilots who flew in the War. It is to be hoped that not one of them will ever be called upon to fly in such a war again.
Then as to new ideas. The sort of thing that the Air Minister or the man who is looking at the question purely from the war point of view would require to do would be to give every sort of encouragement to new developments. There are certain things which are very distant and others that are near. For instance, if one could invent an internal combustion turbine it would revolutionise the whole art of flying. Then, again, if we could get a non-inflammable gas you might make the lighter than air machine a most formidable war weapon. There was an announcement the other day, I think it was by Mr. Handley Page, in regard to a new shutter in the wings which gives an enormous power of lift. It was a form of shutter which was to vary the wing surface, so that when rising from the ground the shutter would open and the wing surface would be reduced, and subsequently the shutter would close so that the wing surface would be considerably increased. Then take the question of flying tests. There are different kinds of new tricks in flying. I am trying to put before myself what should be the preoccupations of someone trying to prepare for another war. Far be it from me to say that it is my general view. Take the cases of novel performances in flying. It was about twelve months ago since Vedrennes landed on the Lafayette Gallery in Paris; a machine 12 metres broad on a gallery 14 metres broad. A very significant performance which might entirely revolutionise, if it were developed, our general ideas about aerodromes and landing places. Take the case of Pegouid who first looped the loop. He was not told to do that by his superior officer. It was a private performance, and it was regarded at the time as singularly foolish: but we know perfectly well that looping the loop during the War was an essential capacity often for the saving of life. It was one of the functions of aerial manœuvring.
Take the question of routes. The man who is preparing for some future hostilities
would have to consider the question of testing the aerial routes over which he would send his aerial forces, supposing that aircraft occupies that high place in offence and attack which we believe it will. Take the case of the flight of R. 34 to America. There is great scope in the testing of the lighter than air machine, and in the getting of aerodromes ready. There is also the development of the equipment of air machines, wireless telephony, communication inside the machine, lights, navigation, &c. Supposing the Minister was preparing for some' future conflict, navigation would occupy an enormous amount of his attention. I am told—I am not sure that it is correct, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell me that the four unfortunate pilots who were lost in flying to Ireland recently were seen many miles to the south. They had lost their way. They had evidently been trying to fly by landmarks on the principle that "there is the land, we will go to right angles and then we shall reach Ireland," instead of working by compass. Then there is the question of meteorology. The Minister preparing for future eventualities would be intensely interested in meteorology, and he would see what enormous importance attaches to correct charting of the air, and the preparation of air charts similar to the charts that we have for the sea or the ordnance survey maps we have for land. General Sykes said that it was the discovery of the trade winds which made the military successes of Spain and Portugal. Real meteorological research may do the same thing for the Air Service. We need to be furnished with all possible knowledge with regard to air currents at different altitudes, so that, say, in flying to America we should know what air currents you would get at anything from 1,000 to 10,000 feet altitude.
All this work is purely civilian in character. It is work that civilian pilots are doing. It is work that is equally useful for war or peace. It is experience accumulated and needed by those who are engaged in civil aviation. Therefore I do ask whether we are quite sure that the distribution of the £15,000,000 in the proportion of £12,500,000 for the mechanical and military side and only £2,500,000 for research and assistance in civil aviation is a wise division. Should not the proportion be more in favour of the civilian side, with possibly the bias on that side?
That is quite a good argument from the point of view of the Amendment, and that is the sort of co-ordination which the Minister could do. It is perfectly obvious that the Director of Civil Aviation could not demand more money from the Chief of the General Staff. That is the work of the Minister, and if we find it is not done, or if we find that it is not done adequately, then we are justified in asking whether it should be left to a Minister pressed with other work which is taking him away from this work; or whether it is wise to have an Air Minister whose mind is full of military ambitions, and who by that very fact is incapable of envisaging the air problems in the right proportions. There is another suggestion, which is this: When the squadrons are trained, is it not possible that they might be used to carry out useful civilian work of various kinds? I could deal with the commercial question. I am told that the Germans are experimenting with eight-motor craft, carrying 3 tons. There is also the question of the postal service. I have some figures dealing with the London to Paris air mail during the August and March period, which is the worst period in which anyone could undertake to fly over a foggy channel, with the rain and wind we have between here and France.
8.0 P.M.
Out of 400 flights that were to be taken no fewer than 280 were safely accomplished; 68 were prevented by weather; 51 were interrupted by weather; and the number prevented or interrupted by mechanical defects was negligible. That is a very encouraging result. In passing I would like to ask whether sufficient facilities are given to people who desire to take advantage of the air mail. I am told that there are only six places in London where you can post letters to go to Paris by air. I am told that the people who have the contract are not paid by a definite subsidy, such as might be paid to a liner for carrying a mail, but are actually paid so much per ounce for what is carried. If you cripple the service by providing only six places of collection and pay only by weight, obviously it cannot be made a profitable undertaking by those who are carrying it on.
I would suggest that work which might suitably be done, training squadrons or piece work, would form a suitable outlet for the peculiar methods of the flying
squadron. I observe on page 17 of the Estimate the large sum of £6,700 for reconstructing the coastguard station at Calshott. What is the Air Force doing in relation to the coastguard service? It may well be that this dual Ministry, where the Minister is in charge of the Air Force, may make it very much harder for the Admiralty to consent to the handing over of its coastguards to the Air Ministry. That is precisely the sort of friction which I anticipate would occur owing to the dual office. Obviously a great deal of the coatsguard station work could be done by seaplanes or flying boats. I know Calshott very well. During the War there were services every day—two or three controls—both westwards towards Portland and eastwards to Newhaven. I had certainly hoped that one of the reasons for the Air Ministry would have been that a great part of the coastguard service of this country could have been taken away from the antediluvian methods at present employed of men walking and handed over to an air machine which would patrol as great a distance effectively in half an hour as a man might walk in half a lifetime.
It is to the civilian side of aviation and its development that attention should be given. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to tell me when I interrupted him that there used to be five airships in the establishment, and that a number of the old ships were still there. Are they under the control of the war side of the Chief of the Staff or under the control of the Director of Civil Aviation, because one of the lessons of the War which could not be mistaken was that the airship, so long as it was merely a gas-filled machine, is a hopeless weapon of war, but that for commercial purposes it has great possibilities with its long duration and its big ambit. There are many features about it which make it much more suitable for commercial purposes than for war purposes, and the airship should be under the control of the civilian side for the purpose of the development of civilian aviation. I think that the E. 34 was positively in the hands of the Admiralty and had to be borrowed by the Air Ministry.

Major TRYON: It was in the hands of the Admiralty.

Captain BENN: That was appalling, and I am glad to know that it has come
to an end. I suggest that airships are essentially a thing which should be in connection with the civilian side of the Ministry. The civilian side of the Ministry has, of course, done an enormous amount of useful work. It is an alarming thing to be told by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major-General Seely), and we know it to be a fact, that civilian aviation in this country is in such a bad way, because it is no good for the Air Ministry to think that by heaping up squadrons and having people drilled and having a force under Vote A they are really making effective protective progress in aviation. It is the civilian side which is bound to make progress. If we had one continual war, which seems to be the great desire of some politicians, we could get great developments in aviation, but as that will not happen we must look to the civilian side, and the constant daily experience of the achievements of the civilian side of the Air Ministry is well known. The possibilities of saving time by civilian aviation are enormous. Bagdad has become now a very important place in view of recent military changes. The Bagdad-Cairo flight is a ten-hour flight compared with the present journey, which has to be by Karachi and Bombay, and takes three or four weeks, and the development of this service means a tremendous change for the good of mankind quite apart from the war side, of which I hope we shall not hear very much.
It is because of its enormous possibilities and of the character of aerial flight that it attracts so many people who are merely repelled by the idea of military action. The Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) most eloquently said that the type of discipline and psychology in the Air Force is utterly different from that of the Army or the Navy. The spirit of adventure, adaptability and a constant devotion to the scientific aspect of things are the prerogative of the Air Force. The reason that I find it so attractive is not because of its war possibilities at all, but because I believe that when we do get air travel thoroughly developed, as it will be one day, it will be a physical defeat for all the people who want to set up barriers between the nations of the world, with customs and tariffs. The moment when the air is full of flying machines, all customs barriers, alien restrictions and all these
divisions which separate mankind and prevent it being one united family will cease, and the reason why I support the development of aviation is not concerned so much with its military side as with the greater development of its civilian side.

Major BARNES: Although I wish to support this Motion for the reduction of the Vote by 100 men, the hon. Member who is in charge for the Government may lake it that there is not any lack of sympathy with the proposal to establish the Air Force, and that there is no desire to impede him in any way in the great task of assisting in the formation and administration of the Force. He must have realised from the speeches to which he has listened that the establishment of the Air Force meets with general sympathy and approval. Its attraction in a great many ways have been dwelt upon. It presents possibilities which no other of our military forces possesses. It has great possibilities in the pursuit of peace. It must play a very great part in the defence of this country. Whether we are going to have war in future or not, there can be no doubt that it is the duty of the Government to make the Force efficient for the defence of these islands. For the purposes of offence, where offence is necessary, we recognise that the Air Force is going to be useful in a direction of saving money. We hope that it will result in the saving of expenditure on the Army and also in the saving of life. I wish to address myself to this question from a point of view which, I think, has been barely touched upon so far. On examining these Estimates they appear—and that appearance is supported by the speeches of the Under-Secretary for Air and the Secretary of State for War—to have a very close relationship with the whole problem of the protection of the Turkish Empire. When one looks at pages 18 and 19 of this Vote, one sees that a great deal of work on building is to take place in the Middle East—in Palestine, in Mesopatamia and elsewhere. In the present state of uncertainty as to the future of the Turkish Empire, it would appear from that that we are prepared to take upon ourselves responsibilities far greater than many of us think we ought to assume.
We are quite in the dark as to what is going to happen. The Prime Minister this afternoon was asked as to the future
Status of Palestine, and he told us he could not give any information. From the Estimates it looks as if preparations were being made by us to assume very real and definite responsibility in regard to great portions of the Turkish Empire. I want as strongly as I can to protest against any such assumption of continued and definite responsibility. For centuries the nations of Europe have looked with desire upon the Middle East. Ever since the days when the Turkish invasion began to recede, one or other of the great Powers of Europe has hoped to establish itself in Turkey's place. For several years before the War the minds of people in this country were almost obsessed with the intentions of Germany. I suppose it would not be unfair to presume that probably the real cause of the War was the determination of the German Empire to obtain supremacy in this part of the world. It forms the road to India, and at one time or another every European nation has hoped to possess India. France, Germany and Russia have all held that ambition, and in holding it they appeared to antagonise the real and vital interests of this country. All these great nations have been disappointed. France long since gave up the idea; Germany's hopes have been shattered; Russia is a changed country. The road seems open and clear for us to take the place of Turkey in great parts of her Empire.
It seems to lie with us to decide whether we shall take permanent possession of Mesopotamia and whether we shall hold Palestine and other parts of the world. These Estimates suggest that that is the purpose of the Government. In so far as they do that we feel ourself bound to oppose them. Very different views may be held as to what we ought to do with those great portions of the world. It may very well be held by some people that it is our duty to occupy them and maintain them by our power. That is not my view or the view of many Members on this side of the House. We feel that it is a false step to take, that there is upon the horizon of the world a new hope and a new possibility in the League of Nations. We think there are possibilities of international control which were not open to the world before, and some of us look to this part of the world as a sphere in which the powers of the League may be exercised. Quite recently in this House a
strong desire was expressed by some hon. Members that Constantinople should be the headquarters of the League of Nations. From our point of view, the right course would be, not to put the lands out there under the control of any individual nation, but that that should be done by such a body as the League of Nations.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): That is not relevant to the Estimate before us.

Major BARNES: We should not undertake or assume responsibility for controlling those parts of the world. We appear to be preparing for an Air Force adequate for that purpose. We think on this side if an Air Force is required, it should be international in character, and that the proper body to control it is the League of Nations. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to give us any indication as to policy, but I suppose it is extremely unlikely. I think he is sometimes rather unfairly blamed on questions of policy, and that too much responsibility is put upon him in that respect. His business as Secretary of State, is to carry out the policy of the Government, and if he displays great enthusiasm and great capacity in that direction, that should not be made the subject of blame. I do hope that he may be able to give us some indication as to the matters to which I have been pointing. He is a very important and responsible member of the whole Government, and their policy, I am sure, is not decided without his counsel, and that it has a very important bearing on it. I should like to be assured by him that the real genesis of this Air Force is not any idea of its becoming a means of defence at home, but for the purpose of ensuring real effective control over great parts of the Middle East which we intend to permanently occupy. That is a matter of substance and importance on these Estimates, and for that reason we have a very real objection to them. This is the first of the great military Estimates, and we feel that it is important, at the outset, that we should endeavour to ascertain whether the growth of our military forces and expenditure is dependent upon the permanent assumption of very great additional responsibilities in controlling very great areas of the world's surface. I notice in two items on pages 18 and 19,
the remark that the total Estimate is under consideration. Does that mean that these two particular items are awaiting the decision of the Government on their general policy with regard to regions in the Middle East? I presume that in the Estimate of 29,730 men provision is made for some sort of force in those regions. Is it the determination of the Government to take very large and indefinite responsibilities in that part of the world? We feel that such an assumption can only mean the starting point for further wars. Germany and Russia are down and out at present, but that is net going to continue There is no doubt that before long both will be restored to very much their former position of power and wealth, and if we are at that time established in that part of the world, that can only mean the starting point of further attacks. The only way, we think, to deal with this matter is to put this part of the world under international control, and that, I take it, would mean the reduction of this Force.

Mr. BILLING: I have on most occasions risen on this subject somewhat in anger, but having dealt with these subjects for upwards of two years, I rise more in sorrow to think that on so essentially important a question as the Air Service, we have not had during a great portion of the Debate a quorum of the House present. I think that is the gravest reflection on the Government and on the Minister responsible. Those of us who knew the present Secretary of State for War in the early days of the War appreciate what an extraordinary amount of work he performed to make the Air Service what it was, and I am rather surprised that he has been content to have it regarded now as a sort of punitive weapon. The hon. Member who preceded me went into the question of an international Air Service. I sincerely trust there is no very great danger of that. The facts which he put forward against this Vote are the very facts why other Members would seriously consider the desirability, not only of supporting this Vote, but of strengthening the hands of the Minister responsible for it. Despite the wave of economy which is passing over the country, some hon. Members would either wish that the Vote were greater, or that the money which is now being expended on such obsolete instruments of war as
armies and navies, in the generally accepted sense of those terms, should be devoted to retaining the supremacy of the air which we undoubtedly achieved in the War.
A very considerable fight was put up in this House before we got any aeroplanes at all. Then we had the public on our side, and eventually the Government bound to public opinion, but to-day, unfortunately, we have neither the House of Commons nor the public on our side. The day will come—and I say it in no pessimistic sense—when the Air Service will stand between this country and its extinction as a great World power, as the Navy has stood in the past between us and our extinction, and yet the first time when we are really debating this matter after the War we find that the only interest that this House can put up is 1 per cent. of its total membership. During the most of this Debate there have been seven Members, including the representative of the Government in the House, and seven out of seven hundred and seven is a very poor show of the interest of this Committee in the general administration of the Air Service. The present Secretary of State for War knows my views on this subject so fully that were he now present I should not need to trouble the Committee with them. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter very fully with him, and once upon a time his views were identical with mine, but the fact that he now has under his charge the War Office seems to have caused him to forget the poor little misshapen child, the Air Service, which he was once so keen upon. I urge on the Under-Secretary to use all his influence to get the War Secretary's views back to the value of the Air Service as he once saw it. He saw the ultimate victory of the War in the Air Service, and I respectfully submit that it was the Air Service that brought victory to our arms in this War. Those men who have studied the effect of our Air Service on the Western Front in the last two years of the War know very well that had it not been for our air supremacy at that time, the result of the engagements on the Western Front in 1917 and 1918 would hare been totally different. As a punitive weapon, only two weeks ago, I think, we had one of the members of the Government standing up and saying that one squadron of the Royal Air Force had
done in a week what the whole British Army could not have accomplished in I do not know how many weeks in the expedition against the Mullah. As a punitive weapon it is unique, it is efficient, and it is inexpensive.
If the Secretary for War really were to tell us the truth when he replies, he would say, "Here is the position. We have to keep a standing Army, and we might as well billet it in Egypt or India as keep it in this country." But I submit that, did we lay the foundation now of an efficient commercial air service, and did we subsidise that air service, it would be quite unnecessary to keep any great military air service in existence. By arranging for a volunteer reserve among the pilots of a great commercial air service, by requesting the directors of all companies connected with commercial aviation to submit their designs to the Air Ministry, by arranging that the cargo or mail-carrying aeroplanes should be so designed that they could be transformed into bombing machines at short notice, by arranging that fast small machines which are now being built by some men in this country for their own personal pleasure should be so designed as to come within the scope of a useful weapon of war, and by subsidising those machines and those men who were prepared to fly them, I suggest that for something like 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the total expense of a standing air service as a fighting unit we could have an enormous reserve to call upon at any time, and not only that, but we should be building up a useful and valuable trade. I assure the Committee that if this country does not take this matter up, there are other countries that will. Germany at present, although we consider her beaten and finished, is building, if anything, more modern aeroplanes and airships than we are, and with the wave of economy which is now going over this country, everybody is saying that we have finished the War because we were victorious. I submit that it is the victorious nations that have to look more closely to their armaments at the end of a war than the beaten nations, and to suggest that because this War has come at last to an end, all wars are finished with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I submit that there never was a war which came to an end when those people who were sore and bitter by that
war did not gather together and say, "This is the last war!"
Every war is the last war, like every quarrel is the last quarrel, but I do not know whether hon. Members who hold that point of view have taken into consideration human nature. The scene that was witnessed in the House last night shows quite clearly that even in this House it is not always possible to retain that reasoned sense of proportion which is so necessary if the affairs even of debate are to be carried on peacefully, and how much more difficult will it be to control a nation with your Press lashing the country into fury about some new outrage that has taken place! In twenty years' time we shall have forgotten the wounds and the horrors of this War, and in forty years' time, probably, we shall be engaged in some other great conflict. The League of Nations—I say it with all respect to those who are so strongly advocating it—might well be called the League of Notions. You are never going, so long as you have pride of race, and personal pride, and family pride, to do away with national pride, and so long as that exists we are going to sec in the future, as we have seen in the past, great conflicts between various nations. If I were not convinced of that, I would ask for the immediate abolition of all forms of armaments, for that is the only logical conclusion. You cannot have it both ways. If there is a majority of men who honestly believe that all wars are about to cease, that we are going to discuss and settle by arbitration all the various insults which nations can suffer at each other's hands, then I say that this Vote is a farce, and that to come down and ask even for a hundred pounds to build aeroplanes of war and engines of death is an insult and a farce.
The War Secretary is accused of having a militant mind. Of course he has a militant mind, because; he has a great imagination. Imagination occasionally brings with it foresight, and I think he realises that this talk of peace when there is no peace is only a phase, and that exhausted humanity wants to think they are never going to have another war, because they are very tired of five years of it. I only wish hon. Members were present, not to listen to any particular speaker, or to take any part in the Debate, but to show by numerical strength that they were behind the War
Secretary in his endeavour to built! up something in the nature of a post-War Air Service commensurate with our Imperial power and strength. I know that word Imperial makes quite a number of Members of this Parliament shudder, but that is my point of view, and if we as an Empire do not stand together we shall make a very small show. We want to be a power in the world.
I pay this country the compliment that it does good, and has done good, and if it is a power for good there is no reason why we should not be proud of it, and we might try to exercise the strength we have. Even hon. Members above me try to make powerful speeches and try to sway opinion for good. I really believe at heart it is for good. Why should not we make of it a greater move and let the whole country be working for good with the world generally? But what has made it the power it was to work for good is the fact that we held the command of the seas and were able to impose our will when it was for the good of the world upon the world. The British Navy in the past has made it a power for good in the world. The British Navy, as a punitive instrument, and as a dominant instrument to impose the will of this country on the rest of the world, is obsolete.' Our Expeditionary Force of men armed with ordinary magazine rifles, and even machine guns, as a punitive force is obsolete. The question arises, are we going to join this world club or are we going in the future to endeavour, as we have in the past, to play the part inspired by national pride, love of fair play and all those things that go down so well when mentioned at a public meeting, and are so little studied in our own political lives. Are we going to drop all that, or are we going to carry it on? Are we going to justify our inheritance 2 Wherever our Army and our Navy went the country benefited by it. I have spent most of my life in travelling over the face of the earth, and I have been to most of our Colonies and worked in them, and wherever the Union Jack has flown there is always a sense of security, dignity, justice and fair play, which does not seem so present in the Colonial possessions and Dominions of other lands. If we admit that our Army and our Navy have in the past been a
valuable instrument in defending world peace and administering justice, the obligation is on every Member of the House, if he believes that, to realise that the time has come when we have to change and to scrap the weapon we have been using in the past to carry out this good work, and we have to prepare for the creation of a new force in the future, and that new force is an air force, and the only possible excuse hon. Members can give for not supporting this is its cost.
There is no reason why the cost should not be greatly reduced by encouraging civil aviation, and by subsidising any firm which will undertake to carry mails We ought, even at a loss, to start to pay a great number of our mails in this country by air. We ought to introduce a regular mail service wherever men can be found to do it in any part of the world We ought to subsidise all our Colonies, possessions and Dominions in every way we can so that they might put on foot, not only air services but air stations and repairing factories, and generally form the nucleus of a great British air fleet which would ring the world from one point to the next. In ten years, with imagination, and at very little expense compared with what our Navy and Army have cost, we could set up such a commercial air service as may yet prove whether or not we continue to exist as a nation. We have fought for freedom and various other things which it is not now fashionable even to mention, and we have to retain them by what we fought for them with. We fought for them by force. What you win with the sword you hold with the sword and not with fair words. We have won it by the sword. I respectfully submit to this Committee that we shall hold it with our great Air Service; we shall lose it without.

Major GLYN: I think it is necessary to ask the hon. Gentleman representing the Air Ministry for certain extra particulars in regard to this Vote, especially respecting the Group Captains, who number 22. How many groups is it proposed that there shall permanently be in existence—not on paper—for these 22 Commanders? There are 78 Wing Commanders; how many Wings are there? There are 196 Squadron Leaders; how many Squadrons are there? There are 1425 Flying or Observer Officers—it is interesting to
know that at the time of the Armistice, on November 11, the maximum number of squadrons in commission was 201. It is positively the saddest thing I have seen in this House, when the subject of the Air Force, which is the potential force of the future, is being discussed, that there should be so little interest taken in it. I know very well the hon. Member who is now in charge of the Air Ministry, with the Secretary of State for War, has the interests of that Service very much at heart. I know that his views for the future are that the nursery period through which the Air Service must pass is certain to be the most difficult time through which he has to pilot his Ministry.
When we were asking to discuss the Air Estimates in the House there was one point I ventured to put which has never yet been answered. That is what are we doing in this country to encourage civil aviation companies in comparison to what is being done in Germany? In saying this I do not want to be called a scaremonger or anything of the sort, for I am very fully aware that the conditions of the weather on the Continent are not the same as in these Islands, Nevertheless, we cannot get over the fact, it is well known, that the terms of the Peace Treaty it is said—I do not know whether it is so or not—arc not being carried out by the Germans, who are in possession of a very large number of squadrons, or at any rate machines which are capable, as we know, of being transferred into war machines at very short notice. Furthermore, in regard to lighter-than-air machines, the German Zeppelin was, I suppose, the finest lighter-than-air machine known. During the war the Germans put up very large establishments for the production of hydrogen. Some of these hydrogen plants are still in existence, still working, and it is possible for the Germans to use their lighter-than-air craft. They might, if they did not do any damage to us, at any rate produce such a situation of funk upon the Continent in a year or two that we might be necessarily perturbed in these Islands.
What is the Air Ministry doing, and how far is the Ministry able to pull its weight in influencing the Cabinet through the Secretary for War to render assistance to those civilian firms who are anxious to build, and so help us to maintain our supremacy? When the War
ended everybody admitted that we had a distinct superiority, not only through the skill of the individual pilot—that is a gift of individualism that this country seems to possess—but also in the skill of the draughtsmen and designers employed by the civilian firms. It stands to reason, with civilian craft manufactures now turning out furniture and not aeroplanes, that it will not be worth while paying the necessary salaries to skilled designers unless the Government are prepared honestly to come forward and admit that they look to the Air Force as the potential force in the future, and recognise that the best insurance that they can adopt is to assist in some way or other commercial firms to develop, and keep pace with the development on the Continent, and of aircraft in general.
I am very well aware that Air-Marshal Trenchard is fully alive to the difficulties of the present situation. I know he understands what the economy cry through the country is. I have no doubt he appreciates that should this country, by any great mischance, be threatened in the immediate future with war, and we were not prepared, on him would be poured the blame for our unpreparedness. But what is the position of the Air Service and the members of the Council? Are they leally able to put forward their views so that the country may know? I am quite convinced that nobody in this country would like to have economy at the expense of danger. I do think we have to get our people to think in terms of air. We do not yet think in terms of air. But it does seem to me absolutely necessary that in this iterim period we should see that everything is done to encourage an adequate reserve not only of pilots and observers but also of machines. If we do not have that reserve created in time of peace we shall undoubtedly be very short in time of war. Now that the total estimate for the Air Service has been reduced to 29,730 of all ranks, it is perfectly obvious that if we are going to keep our position in the forefront in time of war we must depend to even a greater extent than we thought a few months ago upon an efficient and adequate reserve.
9.0 P.M.
The reserve Vote is placed at £77,400. What are the conditions of the training, payment, and service required by the officers and men serving in the Air Force reserve. It would be useful to bring out
this point, because I know there are a large number of officers who served in the Royal Air Force during the War who have not been approached recently or asked to hold themselves in readiness to render service during a future war. It would, therefore, be interesting to know on what is this sum of £77,400 to be spent. There is another question almost of equal importance, though I am not certain whether it strictly comes on this Vote—accommodation to be provided in the various establishments under the Air Ministry. Cranwell is to cost no less a sum than £1,237,800. Cranwell is to be put up for the avowed purpose of training pilots. I understand service pilots only at present. If you are going to spend that money on an establishment for training, can the hon. Gentleman not conceive some policy by which it may be worth the while of commercial aviation companies to allow their own people to go through the training at that college so that they may be trained, not only for their own work as commercial pilots, but be given that extra training which will make them fit to be used as an efficient reserve in time of war? I understand in conversation with representatives of these firms that they consider the best age for air pilots for civilian purposes is 25. But our War experience us that we got excellent and gallant pilots at the age of 18. The college is going to be open to cadets from the age of 18. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us if he will consider the propriety of making provision for civilian pilots to be trained at Cranwell, as otherwise the sum of £1,237,000 seems rather large for an establishment to provide trained officers for a force of 29,000 men. It seems like providing an expensive greenhouse for plants for which you have only got the seed? Is there any idea that the seed is going to grow into such plants as to be worth while putting into the expensive greenhouse? I have one more point in regard to this civilian side of the training establishment. I see the educational staff consists of 42 civilians, who are to be engaged in training services. Is it not possible to get some ex-service instructors to teach at this educational establishment? A considerable sum of money is expended on these civilian instructors, but I venture to say in regard to the moral effect a cadet is likely to
learn a great deal more from an instructor who has on him the glamour of his doings during the late War than from a man, however learned and distinguished, who has spent most of his time in some university town.
There is the further question of research. I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he will consider the giving of assistance to civilian firms in providing machines for all sorts of services that will fulfill certain requirements. Tests were recently made with various machines in attempts to reach the Cape, and those tests have proved certain definite facts. It would be a great pity to allow individual enterprise by private firms, be they newspaper proprietors or firms engaged in advertising if the tests are to pass unnoticed. I venture to say the sum set aside, for research in the able hands to which it is entrusted by the Air Ministry, might be increased with a view to encouraging the securing of a reliable, economical, high-power engine air cooled. But it would be of no use unless there is direct encouragement from the Government. The Germans have made great advance in all-metal machines, and I would be very glad if the hon. Gentleman can tell us what steps have been taken here to test the benefits of all-metal machines. We want to have the engines more concentrated, with self-starters and silencers. It may seem a small point, but during the late War experience taught us that during the raids at night noisy machines were picked up at a great distance and adequate preparations were made for defence against them. Therefore we ought to have some experiments, especially in the matter of silencers on engines, as that might prove a great point in the potential Air Force.
The Government have lately been subjected to tremendous criticism, not only in the public Press, but by distinguished admirals on the retired list, who are so wise in regard to what, ought to be done in respect of matters for which they have no responsibility. There was one point raised by a distinguished expert, a Lord of the Admiralty, who suggested we had no use for our present machines, but must go in for a perfectly marvellous amphibious machine. I am very glad the Government did not think fit to accept his advice and to scrap exisiting machines until, at any rate, they had something better. The hon. Gentleman will confer
a great favour on the country, however, if he will allow experiments to be made with amphibious machines. The British Empire, we are so often reminded, is entirely surrounded by water, and it is obviously best for the development of our Air Service, be it commercial or otherwise, to have an amphibious machine—or, at any rate, a machine which can land either on the water or on the land. I understand that an application was made not very long ago to the Admiralty for a special grant to test a machine of this nature. But with the best will in the world, the Air Minister was not able to comply with the request, not having any funds available for the purpose. I suggest it is penny wise and pound foolish to begrudge money in a case like that.
Last of all there is the general question of the Government encouragement of aviation. I would urge as strongly as I can that the hon. Gentleman should consult the Postmaster-General, who is often open to urgent representations, as Members of the House know. If Egypt is going to be the central radial point of the new air services, as apparently it is to be, it must be of interest not only to the Colonial Office, the Foreign Office, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry to encourage and promote aviation and to enable civilian firms to be established in Egypt. Has the hon. Gentleman at any time approached the Postmaster-General and asked him if he will arrange one definite air mail route to Egypt so that the mails for India and East Africa can be expedited? That will confer great benefit, as persons will receive the mail much quicker, and it will be an encouragement to civilian firms to established themselves in such a way as to promote aviation and inter-communication in the Empire.? want to know definitely whether a mail service has yet been established, or, if one has not, if it is intended to establish one and when operations will commence. I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember that there are in this House a large number of Members who have come here solely for the purpose of assisting the Air Ministry to get through a most difficult task, and if only he will tell us clearly what it is he wants I am quite sure we shall be able to stand up against the cries for economy, provided we are certain ourselves that efficiency is not going to be sacrificed.

Major TRYON: I thank the hon. Member for his criticism, which I am sure is intended to help the work of the Ministry. I am not prepared to answer in detail all the questions about our research, our discoveries, and our latest methods, because I am not sure that it is wise to publish everything that has been done. At the same time, I do see the great value in much that he has suggested, and I will endeavour to answer some of his points. First, let me say that I have not got full particulars of the exact number of comparative numbers of air routes. There are a number of officers, some of high rank, higher than he mentioned, engaged in the work of research, but there are no squadrons or groups or wings corresponding to those officers. The hon. Member spoke of the training of the boys. In command of them there are a number of officers holding the ranks which correspond to the importance of the work they are undertaking for the nation.
The number of squadrons and the arrangements for the Air Force was issued as a White Paper some time ago, and it is on the basis of that establishment that these estimates are based.
The next point the hon. Member alluded to is what is going to be done to help civil aviation. I am not prepared to go over again what I said on the subject, but I would remind him that it is asking a good deal that we should build from military sources, aeroplanes above those which are required for the defence of the country. With regard to the Air Force Reserve, the scheme has not yet been fully worked out, but Sub-head H of Vote 1 is intended to provide for the reserve and for annual training. With regard to commercial pilots going through our training college, I would remind him that the work which is done at that college is not solely a matter of the training of officers for flying. They are instructed in all the various technical things which officers have to learn, and if you have commercial pilots, I should not suggest that they should go through a course of that kind, and in that connection he alluded to the question of civil instructors. Some of these are men of great distinction. I had the pleasure of reading through their qualifications before they were appointed. They are teaching things, such as history, the English language—a difficult subject—and other things which are part of the
essential qualifications of a regular officer who is going to lead trained men, but are not subjects necessary to be taught by flying officers.

Captain BENN: Is that teaching young officers?

Major TRYON: Yes, the cadets, like Sandhurst.

Major GLYN: I cannot see why the country should not give these boys an excellent education, train them in every way as citizens. and yet that they should be available at the age of 25 to act as commercial pilots.

Major TRYON: I am not quite sure that I apprehend what his point is, but I would remind him that there are a number of officers enlisted in the Air Force for short-time engagements, who would be available for the kind of work he mentioned. The question of the evacuation of Mesopotamia is hardly a matter for me to deal with.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It might not be possible for my hon. Friend to answer that, but I must respectfully enter my protest against the suggestion that it is not within the proper realm of those taking part in the Debate on Vote A to raise such a question as this. The question of the occupation of Mesopotamia is mentioned in one of the subsequent Votes, and it is on Vote A that these large questions of policy are properly raised. I can understand that he is not able to answer it, but it is the right and duty of those Members who feel it their conviction to raise it on this Vote.

Major TRYON: I will now deal with some of the interesting points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn). I should like to thank him for his speech, which was obviously intended to help in every way. He asked whether our Research Department was in touch with the National Physical Laboratory. I am glad to be able to tell him that it is. I thank him for raising the question. He also dealt with the proposal that our squadrons should do useful commercial work. We are at present going into proposals
which I hope will prove a success for the use of Service machines for communication between Cairo and Bagdad.

Captain BENN: For mails?

Major TRYON: They will carry letters, but at the same time it is an arrangement that the Royal Air Force is prepared to terminate it at any moment in the event of the Post Office and civil firms coming to an arrangement to substitute a civil service for the service which at this moment is being carried on by the Royal Air Force. With regard to the question of postal facilities for the aerial mail, I may say that I have been lately in communication with the Postmaster-General. I went to see him accompanied by Sir Frederick Sykes, and we did all we could to offer information which would help the work, and urged on him the development of the postal service through the use of aerial communication. We are doing all we can to forward that matter. On the question of rigid airships we are anxious not to waste those airships which remained over from the War, and if we are able to develop some commercial service or put them to some practical commercial use we shall do so.

Captain BENN: That was not altogether my point. If you have got lighter-than air ships, why not put them under the direction of the Civil Aviation Department so that they may be used in some useful way. Why not use them to help the development of civil aviation?

Major TRYON: At this moment the spare ones are not attached to the Royal Air Force, but to the Department of Supply and Research.

Captain BENN: On the establishment?

Major TRYON: Yes, on the establishment. I think these were all the points that were raised, and I should like to thank the hon. Member and all hon. Members for the way in which they have never done anything except to help the Ministry.

Question put, "That 29,630 men be maintained for the said Service"

The Committee divided: Ayes. 45; Noes, 140.

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[9.21 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Grundy, T. W.
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bromfield, William
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Roberts, Frederick O, (W. Bromwich)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Cairns, John
Hayday, Arthur
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Irving, Dan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spoor, B. G.


Donnelly, P.
Kenyon, Barnet
Swan, J. E. C-


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Finney, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
MacVeagh, Jeremiah



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Mr. G. Thorne and Colonel Penry Williams.




NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fell, Sir Arthur
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Foreman, Henry
Morris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Forrest, Walter
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)


Armitage, Robert
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Parker, James


Atkey, A. R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Baird, John Lawrence
Gange, E. Stanley
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Baldwin, Stanley
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ramsden, G. T.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gould, James C.
Reid, D. D.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Billing, Noel Pemberton.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Gregory, Holman
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Royden, Sir Thomas


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Seddon, J. A.


Bruton, Sir James
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hood, Joseph
Simm, M. T.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Stevens, Marshall


Carr, W. Theodore
Home, Sir R. S, (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Casey, T. W.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cautley, Henry S.
Jesson, C.
Sugden, W. H.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Johnson, L. S.
Taylor, J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kellaway, Frederick George
Tryon, Major George Clement


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kidd, James
Vickers, Douglas


Courthope, Major George L.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Waring, Major Walter


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lloyd, George Butler
Whitla, Sir William


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Dawes, James Arthur
Mitchell, W. Lane
Winterton, Major Earl


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Younger, Sir George


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)



Elveden, Viscount
Neal, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Newton, Major Harry Kottingham
Ward.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

PAY, ETC, OF THE AIR FORCE.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,661,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921,

QUARTERING, STOKES (EXCEPT TECHNICAL), SUPPLIES, AND TRANSPORT

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,005,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.

TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £6,172,850, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND LANDS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,647,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.

Captain W. BENN: On this Vote I should like to ask the Under-Secretary, or the Secretary of State, one or two questions. This is a Vote for works, buildings and lands, and the questions I wish to ask relate particularly to new works, additions and alterations, shown under Sub-heading B. Can we be told more about the provision of accommodation for Coastguards at Calshot? On this I should like to ask for an amplification of what the right hon. Gentleman said about Coastguard services. I do not think anything was said fully about that question. We believe that a great deal of the services at present rendered by the Coastguards could be done by the Air Force. One Minister holds two offices, on the plea that he can co-ordinate the work between the two. He says he would go further in that direction, and here is a case in point. There is a large force of Coastguards who do on foot in an obsolete way a great deal of work that could be done very efficiently by a service of flying boats stationed round the coast. So far as we can gather from this item, at Calshot, which is one of the largest and most important Naval Flying Stations, they are building Coastguards huts. I know Calshot very well, and there used to be no Coastguards' cottages there. Then why spend £6,000, if that has been done, in rebuilding Coastguards' cottages there? Will the hon. Gentleman kindly make a statement as to the policy of the Air Ministry in regard to Coastguard services, and as to how far it is proposed to take the obvious step in advance of giving some of these duties to the Air Service to perform?
Then, again, the Middle East programme for aerodromes is a very interesting
one and I think it is obviously right that this should be the place where big aerodromes are provided. The climate of Egypt, as we know, is an all-day flying climate. The only thing is that people who learn to fly there are not always prepared for the buffeting they get in less suitable climates, especially that of this country. Assuming that Egypt must be, not only the Charing Cross of commercial aviation, but the large training ground for pilots, we should expect to find, and we do find, a large provision for aerodromes there, but I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a few detailed questions. There are the barracks at Abassia," quite close to Cairo, and £20,000 is to be taken for providing regimental accommodation there. At the same time I invite the attention of hon. Members to Item No. 22, which shows £65,000 as the estimated cost of office accommodation for officers and men at Cairo. Abassia is within a ten minutes' tram ride of Cairo. I do not like to suggest that it is the lure of the town, but would it not be better, if there is a large regimental establishment at Abassia, that the officers should be there. Perhaps this-suggestion is mal apropos, but the hon. Gentleman can possibly tell me if there is anything in it. Then with regard to Items 20 and 21, relating to Aboukir and Alexandria, Aboukir is only a very short distance from Alexandria, and is the place where a large flying school was started during the War. Here, again, I may be wrong in suggesting that a concentration would be a good thing, but about Aboukir there is another question. I fancy that some years ago, when the aerodrome was selected, the patch of desert chosen was so near the coast that novices in flying would sometimes get blown out to sea on land machines, and I think one or two were lost in that way. It could not be changed during the War, because these things take time, but I would like to ask whether that has been taken into account. Then, as regards individual aerodrome? and their possible concentration. What is the object of putting No. 23 (Heliopolis), No. 19 (Abassia) (which is absolutely next door to Heliopolis), and No. 22 (Cairo) in three separate items? I should also like to ask how do the Civil Aviation Branch stand as regards these aerodromes, which appear on the military Vote and appear to be under the control of the Chief of the Air Staff. Certainly it would seem to
me that primarily they have to do with the civilian part of the work, and that the greatest use that will be made of these aerodromes for aviation developments will be a civilian use. Egypt is the centre for flights from Europe to the East, and I would suggest that this provision of aerodromes interests the Director of Civil Aviation. I did ask this on Vote A. Here is a Minister who, we think, should be a whole-time Minister, because it does require—despite the very able assistance which I am sure my hon. Friend would give him—a whole-time service to co-ordinate an office, and we want to know what co-ordination does exist between the Department of the Chief of the Air Staff and that of the Director of Civil Aviation. We find an enormous Vote for aerodromes and new works, and later on a similar Vote on behalf of the Director of Civil Aviation. An aerodrome or landing ground is a landing ground; it is not a military or civil landing ground, but a landing ground. Do the two Departments merely meet at the Air Council, or is there some interdigitation in their councils or functions that insures the proper smooth joint working that there should be?

Major TRYON: With regard to the Coastguard Service, I need hardly say that any development of the Air Force for coastal use would be a thing which we should welcome, because we naturally want to see all our movements developed. This particular building, however, is in a different position. When we took over from the Admiralty a certain station, we took over this particular building, which is in the middle of the station, and we did that on the understanding that we would give them a new building somewhere else. We are giving them a new building somewhere else, as part of the undertaking on which we secured this particular station. It is simply the fulfilment of an obligation undertaken on our behalf during the War.

Captain BENN: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that the buildings that are at Calshott have to be replaced, but could he tell us now what the Air Ministry is doing to take over definitely from the Admiralty part of the coastguard duties? That is a very interesting problem.

Lieut-Colonel MALONE: And could the hon. Gentleman say why it is necessary
to re-build these buildings, seeing that the Coastguard Service at Calshott has been suspended for at least six years?

Major TRYON: I am not prepared, without notice, to say for what purpose the buildings are required, but the fact remains that we promised to provide them, and we are doing so. I need hardly say that we shall bear in mind the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion, and if the Admiralty are willing to use the Air Force in coastguard services nobody will be more delighted than ourselves. With regard to Aboukir, Alexandria, and Cairo, I am not prepared, without longer warning, to go into that question, but there are many cases in this country, and doubtless there also, where we are already tied to certain stations. We are trying to avoid any duplication of unnecessary stations, and I entirely agree with that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

SILVER COINAGE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I think there can be no doubt that, so far as this country is concerned, this is a very good Bill We cannot go on having small change which is really worth more than its nominal value, and I do not think there is any real danger in reducing the shilling to the standard of value indicated in the Bill. It will still be a fairly costly coin to make, and I do not think there will be any serious danger of its being forged by putting genuine, but unauthorised, shillings on the market. It is clear that if the intrinsic value of the coinage was reduced so very low that there was a profit of 2s. 5d. in making the Government half-crown, enterprising forgers would make half-crowns quite as good as the Government half-crowns and put them on the market. But the margin of safety in this Bill is quite enough for all purposes, so far as this country is concerned, and, of course, in this country silver is
only token coinage, and the fact that it is not legal tender for more than 40s. is a complete safeguard. The £ sterling is the standard, and these coins are only small change for the necessary convenience of business. But when you come to our possessions across the seas, it is very doubtful whether this Bill does not open up the way to considerable danger. A question was put the other day with regard to East Africa. These new shillings and half-crowns, so much lower in intrinsic value than those which have been circulated hitherto, are to be put in circulation, I understand, in West Africa. In East Africa new rupees of very much lower intrinsic value than the Indian rupee which has circulated there hitherto is to be put into circulation. But we are told the position is safeguarded because they are only to be token money exchangeable for sterling at a fixed rate. If all proper precautions are taken to see that they can easily be exchanged on the spot, that would be safe enough. Of course, if the exchange can only be made by sending to London or something of that sort there might be considerable danger, but if you have token silver there which is exchangeable into sterling there is no danger.
I want to have some assurance with regard to West Africa, because I do not think the position has been made at all clear. These silver coins are going to circulate in West Africa, and there they will also have West African silver shillings, two-shilling pieces, half-crowns, and so on, practically the same as ours, except that they will have the words "West Africa" upon them. I want to know, are these silver coins in West Africa token money or standard money? My impression is that silver there is standard money, and circulates at its intrinsic value. If that is so, the cutting down of the weight of silver in the coins to not much more than half of that which is in the coins circulating there now is a dangerous proceeding, because it is certainly debasing the standard of value, and must inevitably put up prices there. When the shilling has only five-pennyworth of silver in it, it is certainly not going to circulate at the same rate as when it had a shilling's worth of silver in it, because out there it is unlimited
tender. Whether there is any other standard by which it can be corrected, whether it is connected in any way out there with the £ sterling, I do not know. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us this information and to take all necessary precautions to see that the standard of value in West Africa is not debased by the introduction of this new silver coinage here, because if it is debased it will lead to a complete upset of the exchanges, and all the prices in that part of the world, and will certainly effect very great hardship upon various classes there and make some rich and some poor, in the same way that the great upset of prices which has taken place in the last two or three years has done in this country. Therefore I ask for an assurance that every care will be taken not to use these coins so as to debase the standard of value in West Africa or any other part of our Empire where they are unlimited tender.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): This matter was discussed at some length in Committee, when I had not the advantage of being present. This is not a subject which has been closely under my own attention, but it has received all through the most careful personal attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If my hon. Friend bears in mind the assurance my right hon. Friend gave on the Committee stage, I am quite sure he need feel no alarm. I referred to his words while my hon. Friend was speaking, and he may feel every confidence that nothing in this Bill will cause such deplorable effects in West Africa as he anticipated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that, so far as West Africa is concerned, our coinage here is entirely subsidiary, and it is only on occasions when they are actually short of coinage that they draw on this country to come to their assistance. The hon. Member may feel quite confident that if any of the consequences of which he is apprehensive are likely to result they would, of course, avoid drawing on this country if it might lead to those results. I can give him an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend most freely that the results of this Bill, which he acknowledges most frankly are desirable and beneficial to this country, shall not be allowed to do anything
detrimental to the existing coinage in West Africa.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

VETERINARY SURGEONS ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order for Second Beading read.

Sir WATSON CHEYNE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very short Bill. It is produced on behalf of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which is the only college for veterinary surgeons in the kingdom, They have no invested capital of their own of any consequence, and have to depend for their income on the examination fees, and on the fees for registration of those who pass the examinations. The examination fees are limited to the four examinations to 20 guineas. In fact, the college is out of pocket on the examination fees. They have an average of 70 or 80 admissions to the Veterinary College every year, and their income is not anything like sufficient to pay expenses. They are only able to carry on by voluntary contributions. There are 2,300 members on the register and 1,100 of these give a voluntary contribution of one guinea a year, and that enables the college to carry on, but nothing more. The proposal in the Bill is that there should be not merely an admission fee but also an annual fee of one guinea. That would not come into force for about four years. So far as the present students of the College are concerned, they have entered on the assumption that they should only pay one guinea for admission. The College sets a standard for the knowledge required for veterinary surgeons, and if it is allowed to pass out of being it would be very bad for the Veterinary science of this country.

In Clause 4, there is a provision which has aroused the suspicions of the irregular veterinary practitioners and is the cause of opposition to the Bill. Apart from the thousands of members and fellows of the Royal Veterinary College there are a large number of unqualified men practicing as veterinary surgeons and I believe doing very well. These men, so long as they do not call themselves veterinary surgeons—and there is no reason why they should—cannot be touched by the College; but it
seems a very curious thing that if three or four of these men club together and call themselves a veterinary dispensary or a veterinary hospital—thereby practically calling themselves veterinary surgeons—they cannot be touched, because the original charter only spoke of "person" and not "persons." Clause 4 is to give power to prohibit even a company from, forming themselves into a veterinary dispensary or hospital. Any irregular practitioner who does not pretend to be a graduate of the college is not touched. The trouble arises because some veterinary surgeons who have a very large practice have an unqualified assistant. So long as that assistant acts under the qualified veterinary surgeon he cannot be touched, but some of the veterinary surgeons with large practices and who are greedy will put an unqualified man into a practice, put their name over the door of the surgery, will have nothing to do with his practice, but will give him a salary of £200 or £300 a year and pocket the rest of the profits. Those men are carrying on, a fraud. The Veterinary College has bye laws under which it can prosecute, veterinary surgeons who are guilty of such a fraud. They do not prosecute the, unqualified man, but the unqualified men—there are not many of them, I am told there are only 20 or 30—are afraid of losing their practice. What is desired on the part of the Veterinary College is not to injure them in the slightest degree but only to prevent their own graduates from committing fraud.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
10.0 P.M.
This Bill has been, brought on rather unexpectedly. On the face of it it looks very innocent and apparently only designed to raise funds for the Royal Veterinary College. I had hoped that the Bill would not have been brought on until a later date, and that the objections which are raised by the unregistered practitioners might have been settled and the Bill passed without any objection. The unregistered practitioners object to the Bill, particularly on Clause 3, which includes the enforcement of a bye-law which renders it penal for any veterinary surgeon to employ an unregistered practitioner. The unregistered practitioners have very large practices throughout the country, and without their assistance the
farmers and other owners of stock could not possibly get on. Of course they have not had the advantage of education as veterinary surgeons, but they have spent their whole lives in practice and acquired a considerable amount of skill and science, and though occasionally you will perhaps find here and there a man who uses a rusty knife, yet as stock gets more valuable and more expensive the employment of these men becomes scarcer. The unregistered practitioners hope that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons will admit into the college, as they did in 1881, those men who have been in practice for, say, five years and can be recommended by responsible persons. Then they feel that their position will be safe. But there is a fear that the Veterinary College will endeavour to repress the unregistered man, and consequently a vast number of these men will be thrown out of employment. In most veterinary practices unregistered men are employed as assistants by veterinary surgeons. Frequently these businesses are sold and the unregistered practitioner has been included in the sale. There are instances of one brother who is a veterinary surgeon and has another brother working with him who is unregistered. Bye-laws have been in existence for some time, but have not been enforced for many years, but if they are enforced then the brother will be turned out, and it will be very hard on many of these people suddenly to be turned adrift after spending many years at the business.

Mr. JODRELL: I rise to second the rejection of the Bill. It is true that the Bill in itself is reasonable and logical, and has a great deal to commend it to everyone interested in science, and in the scientific advancement of veterinary work throughout the country. Still, at the back of the Bill there is a suggestion of compulsion being put upon a large class of men to join in the working of a college which they are incapable of doing for want of previous education. There is in this country a large number of men of comparatively small education who have learned from their fathers before them how to deal with animals and animals' diseases. Anyone in those country districts well that those men often are called upon in sudden emergencies to perform operations which are singularly
skilful and singularly successful. But these operations are performed by men who are unable to pass examinations, and probably never will be able to pass them. Rightly or wrongly, there is a strong feeling among the farming community that these men should not be pushed out of practice in the country districts. From the wording of the by-laws of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, there seems to be a tendency more and more to exclude them from the work which they have performed for generations. I object to the Second Reading of this Bill from the point of view of a class much larger than has been suggested. We have had the figure of 1,500 men who would be affected. Taking even half that figure, it still leaves a very large class of able, successful and useful people in the agricultural community.

Sir H. CRAIK: I quite sympathise with the feelings expressed by the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken and the Mover of the rejection of this Bill. No doubt there may be certain objections to the Bill on the part of a small class of unqualified practitioners who feel that their position is somewhat undermined. I think they are unnecessarily alarmed. Surely we as a House of Commons have some duty higher than that of merely attending to the interests of a small class of unqualified practitioners. We must have regard to the fact that much cruelty might be caused to animals by such practitioners. The Mover of the rejection of the Bill spoke lightly of the occasional use of a rusty knife. Does he not think that the creature on which a rusty knife is used may suffer as much as a human being? What does it weigh that a few men who have gathered a sort of unskilled casual habit of practising upon these animals should be for a certain time deprived of their means of perpetrating further torture on those animals? Surely in all these things what we should aim at is the highest possible amount of skilled and trained work and scientific knowledge. We perform certain operations on animals. Surgeons are accused of being cruel and of neglecting the interests of animals when they carry on the experiments necessary in the interests, not of humanity only, but of the lower animals themselves. Here we are told: "Do not mind about the interests of the lower animals; do not mind if a rusty knife is occasionally used."

Brigadier-General COLVIN: I did not say anything of the kind.

Sir H. CRAIK: Surely what we ought to do is to endeavour as far as we can to bring the highest skill and greatest knowledge and manipulation to operations on animals. It is for these reasons I would urge that this Bill, moderate as it is, should be passed. There is no desire on the part of the veterinary surgeons to stop these unqualified assistants if they are working under the due and proper supervision of a qualified man. If the qualified man is there to see that nothing very serious is wrong I that is all, and there is no desire to prosecute those people or those who occasionally employ the assistance of these unqualified men. What is desired is that awkward practitioners should be stopped from acting independently.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I rise to support the Bill. I think there is a little misapprehension in the minds of some hon. Members with regard to the real object of the Bill, which is to put the veterinary service on a higher plane if possible than it is at present, and to improve the status of veterinary surgeons throughout the whole country. I do not think the question of the unqualified man arises. The members of the Royal Veterinary College are asked to subscribe a certain sum per annum with a view to improving the Royal Society of Veterinary Surgeons, and in that way to confer a great boon on animals on which veterinary surgeons have to perform.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 51.

Division No. 58.]
AYES.
[10.17 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Green, Albert (Derby)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gregory, Holman
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel N.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Barlow, Sir Montague
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Reid, D. D.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barnston, Major Harry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Hopkinton, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster;
Simm, M. T.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Jesson, C.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Brown, Captain D. C.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Bruton, Sir James
Kellaway, Frederick George
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Buchanan, Lieut. Colonel A. L. H.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Casey, T. W.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cautley, Henry S.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Lloyd, George Butler
Taylor, J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Lorden, John William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Courthope, Major George L.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Waring, Major Walter


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Dean, Lieut. Commander p. T.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Whitla, Sir William


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mitchell, W. Lane
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Neal, Arthur
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Fell, Sir Arthur
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Forrest, Walter
Oman, Charles William C.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Gange, E. Stanley
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Pulley, Charles Thornton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Sir W. Cheyne and Sir H. Cralk.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Dawes, James Arthur
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Baldwin, Stanley
Donnelly, P.
Grundy, T. W.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. M. (Devizes)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hartshorn, Vernon


Bromfield, William
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Hayday, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Finney, Samuel
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Forestler-Walker, L.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Cairns, John
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Hinds, John.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Galbralth, Samuel
Hirst, G. H.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Glyn, Major Raiph
Irving, Dan


Cope, Major Wm.
Gould, James C.
Jephcott, A. R.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Ken worthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Williams, Lieut.-Com. (Tavistock)


Lunn, William
Sexton, James
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Spoor, B. G.



Morgan, Major D. Watts
Swan, J. E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Myers, Thomas
Wallace, J.
Brigadier-General Colvin and Mr.


Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Jodrell.


Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)




Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres-Monsell.]

Captain W. BENN: May I appeal to the Chief Government Whip to withdraw the
Motion for the Adjournment of the House so that we may see if there is general agreement on the next Bill on the Order Paper—the Poor Scotch Litigants (Expenses) Bill? It is a small Order, and has been explained by the hon. Member who moved the First Reading.

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I am afraid I cannot do that, because the Secretary for Scotland is not able to be here.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes after Ten o'clock.